1. Introduction (Paras 1-2):
   The petitioners filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the charge-sheet filed against them in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006 for conspiracy to murder V.G. Patil.

2. History of the Case (Para 3):
   The case involved the murder of V.G. Patil, registered under Section 302 of IPC. Initially, two persons, Raju Mali and Raju Sonawane, were arrested. The petitioners were later arrested, but earlier proceedings against them were quashed by the High Court in 2006, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court.

3. Further Developments (Paras 4-6):
   The case was transferred to the CBI, leading to supplementary charge-sheets against the petitioners, alleging conspiracy. The prosecution's case was that the petitioners hired the two accused for a contract killing.

4. Conviction and Appeal of Co-Accused (Paras 7-8):
   Raju Sonawane was convicted under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, but the conviction was overturned by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2015, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings against them based on this acquittal.

5. Arguments from Petitioners (Paras 9-10):
   The petitioners argued that the findings from Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2015 regarding the lack of evidence for conspiracy and contract killing should be applied to them. They emphasized that no credible evidence linked them to the murder or conspiracy.

6. Opposition from Prosecution (Paras 11-12):
   The State and the deceased's widow opposed the quashing, claiming that the petitioners should still face trial. However, the court noted the lack of further investigation and the prosecution's failure to prove the conspiracy.

7. Court's Observations (Paras 13-14):
   The court observed that the prosecution’s theory of contract killing was not proven. There was no evidence of a conspiracy or payment for murder. The court referred to previous judgments and reiterated that no meeting of minds for conspiracy was established.

8. Ratio Decidendi (Para 15-16):
   Based on the acquittal of Raju Sonawane and the absence of new evidence, the court held that it would be unjust to continue the trial against the petitioners. The court applied the principles from State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) to quash the proceedings.

Conclusion:

The Bombay High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, citing the lack of evidence to prove conspiracy and contract killing. The prosecution’s case was fundamentally weakened by the earlier acquittal of the co-accused.