SATISH PANCHARIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code [for short "Cr.P.C."] for quashing of M.E.C.R. No. 2 of 2012, registered with Malad Police Station, Mumbai, in furtherance of Order dtd. 9/1/2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24thCourt, Borivali, Mumbai in C.C. No.04/SW/2012.

(2.) Heard Mr. Kumbhokoni, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned APP for Respondent No.1- State. Perused entire record produced before us.

(3.) The record indicates that, Advocate Ms. Shabnam Latiwala has caused her appearance on behalf of Respondent No.2, the contesting Respondent. As far as Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, they had claimed that, they were authorized to represent Respondent-2, Company. Their said claim has been adjudicated by this Court and by an Order dtd. 7/5/2012, it has been held that, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have no authority to represent Respondent No.2 and it is Advocate Ms. Shabnam Latiwala, authorized to represent Respondent No.2. The said Order dtd. 7/5/2012 holds the field and there is no deviation in the adjudication effected by this Court on the claim of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, for their authority to represent Respondent No.2.