DIPENJIT BORA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.1 .in Crime No. 282/2014 registered by Whitefield police for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 426, 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, 470, 506 and 34 IPC is seeking for quashing of the proceedings contending interalia that reading of the complaint filed by second respondent does not even remotely suggest any criminal act on the part of petitioner and merely because accused No.2 is related to the petitioner, would not be a ground to proceed against the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is seeking for quashing of the proceedings initiated against him.

(2.) Since respondent-3 has been arraigned as accused No.2, notice has been issued and no report has been received insofar as service of notice. Since prayer sought for in the present petition is based on the complaint lodged by respondent-2, appearance or otherwise of respondent-3 in these proceedings would be of no consequence. Hence, even in the absence of service of report regarding service of notice on respondent-3, this matter is heard finally and disposed of by this order.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of Smt.Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C.R.Raghavendra Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-2 and Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-1. Perused the records.