1 28 wp.933.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 933 OF 2010 Mr. Satish Shivanna Hegde. ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondents ----- Mr. C.K. Tripathi for the Petitioners. Mr. Y.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 23 rd August, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Insofar as prayer clause (a) is concerned, the learned APP submits that the missing complaint against Respondent No.3 has already been closed as is seen from the report dated 08 th July, 2010 as the Respondent No.3 has been traced. In that sense, prayer clause (a) is worked out. 3 Insofar as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the learned APP in 2 28 wp.933.10 all fairness accepts that the allegations contained in complaint filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No.3, if true, would make out case of cognizable offence against Respondent No.3. In that case, the FIR will be registered and proceeded and steps will be taken as per law to proceed against Respondent No.3. In view of this assurance, nothing survives for consideration in the present petition, the same is disposed of on the understanding that the Respondent No.2 shall take appropriate steps as may be advised on the basis of the complaint received from the Petitioner within one week and take action to its logical end as per law. 4 Petition disposed of accordingly. [ U.D. SALVI, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]