Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present application, the applicant namely Manisha d/o Bapusingh Patil prays that the first information report, offence, registered against her at Pachora police station, district Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 10 (1) & (2) and 11 (1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance and verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2000”), be quashed and set aside. It is the contention of the applicant that she belongs to Rajput Bhamta caste, which is notified as nomadic tribe. The applicant is working as a Krushi Sevak and after her appointment, her caste claim was referred to the respondent/Committee. However, respondent no.2/Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the applicant by its order dated 28.7.2005. Hence, the applicant herein preferred Writ Petition No. 5249 of 2005 before this court and thereby challenged the said order dated 28.7.2005 therein. In the said Writ Petition, interim relief was granted in favour of the applicant on 11.8.2005 in terms of prayer clause ‘D’ thereof. Ultimately, the said Writ Petition No. 5249 of 2005 was decided by this court in favour of the applicant on 21.8.2007 and the impugned order dated 28.7.2005 passed by the Scrutiny Committee was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee. 3. Thereafter, the Scrutiny Committee validated the claim of the applicant by order dated 9.7.2008 holding caste certificate of the applicant as Rajput Bhamta, issued by the Collector on 30.9.2004 as valid and legal. However, it is the contention of the applicant that meanwhile the offence/first information report came to be registered against the applicant on 5.8.2005, bearing CR No. 103 of 2005 by Damodhar Kishan Jadhav, PSI, Vigilance, Nasik for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code and also under the above referred provisions of the Act of 2000. The applicant urges that the said complaint/first information report has become infructuous, in view of validation of the caste claim of the applicant by the Scrutiny Committed by order dated 9.7.2008, and therefore, the said first information report, offence be quashed and set aside. 4. The applicant urges that the said complaint/first information report has become infructuous, in view of validation of the caste claim of the applicant by the Scrutiny Committed by order dated 9.7.2008, and therefore, the said first information report, offence be quashed and set aside. 4. Since directions were issued by this court in Writ Petition No. 5249 of 2005, filed by he applicant herein, by way of order dated 21.8.2007, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.7.2005 and remanding back the matter to the Scrutiny Committee, to hear the petitioner/applicant herein afresh and to pass the order in accordance with law on its merits, and since the Scrutiny Committee heard the said matter after said remand afresh and arrived to the conclusion holding the caste of the petitioner as Rajput Bhamta, as per the caste certificate issued by the Collector on 30.9.2004 as valid and legal, it is apparently clear that the first information report, offence registered against the applicant, under CR No. 103 of 2005, for the offences as afore stated, has become infructuous and same deserves to be quashed and set aside, allowing the present application. 5. In the result, present Criminal Application No. 1273 of 2007 is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and the offence/first information report registered under CR No. 103 of 2005, against the applicant at Pachora police station, district Jalgaon, under Sections 468 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 10(1)(2) and 11 (1) of the Act of 2000, stands quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.