CHARANJEET CHANDERPAL Vs. DHARINI NARENDRA NAGDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.'), 1973 seeks the following reliefs:-

(2.) The petitioner before us is an Advocate so also the first respondent/original complainant. The 2nd respondent has been impleaded only because he appears as an Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant. The 3rd and the 4th respondents are the Senior Inspector of Police, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Mumbai - 400 001 and the 5th respondent is the State of Maharashtra.

(3.) We do not think that the 2nd respondent could have been impleaded as party-respondent for we are not concerned with any allegations that he may have made against the petitioner. They are pertaining to a distinct case. In the present case we are only concerned with the First Information Report ('FIR') No.250/2010. That is registered at the instance of the first respondent.