IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.495 of 1999. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.495 of 1999. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.495 of 1999. Prashanta N. Bahuguna & Others ..Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent alongwith alongwith alongwith WRIT PETITION NO. 38 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO. 38 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO. 38 OF 2001 Brijendra Shekhar Shukla ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Niranjan Mundargi for the Petitioner Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP for the State CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 20th June, 2008. DATED : 20th June, 2008. DATED : 20th June, 2008. P.C. 1. Both these petitions arise from the same FIR and in the first petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR, whereas in the second petition a prayer is made for quashing of Special Case No.1 of 2000 arising from the same C.R. i.e. C.R.No.9 of 1999. Though the petitions were admitted, there was no interim relief granted. -2- 2. Mr. Mundargi, learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that on completion of the investigation in the C.R. chargesheet came to be filed and in fact an application filed for discharge has also been rejected. Consequently, as of now, admittedly the petitions have become infructuous. 3. Hence, they are dismissed, as such Rule discharged. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (B.H.Marlapalle, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (B.H.Marlapalle, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (B.H.Marlapalle, J.)