AZAM YARKHAN Vs. MANISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners question prosecution vide RCC No. 383/2013, which culminated into FIR vide Crime No First I-16/2013 for the offense under Sections 420, 464, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at City Chowk Police Station, at Aurangabad.

(3.) Respondent Manish has filed the prosecution, asserting to be General Power of Attorney Holder, without naming such persons in his complaint in title clause, making allegations against the applicants and several Government authorities; Talathi, Tehsildar, Superintendent. It is quite clear, respondent Manish has no personal knowledge of the transaction.