the respondents be directed to comply with the order dated 11/7/2007 passed by the First Court. In our opinion, since the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed, this application has, in effect, become infructuous. Learned counsel for the applicants have pointed out that in its order dated 11/7/2007, the First Court had directed the investigating agency to look into the averments made in the writ petition in relation to the fictitious transactions and action against receivers of the stolen property. He submitted that the investigating agency has not taken any steps in this behalf and, therefore, appropriate directions be given. It is pertinent to note that when this order was passed, the court was not informed that the investigation was complete and the chargesheet was filed. When the application was moved for modification of the order dated 11/7/2007, this court took note of this fact and, accordingly, noted it in its order. Paragraph 4 of order dated 11/7/2007 needs to be read against the background of the above facts. Therefore, there is no question of re-opening of the investigation and giving any direction to the investigating agency at this stage. However, in any case, the grievance of the applicant
