SUNIL SHAMSUNDAR HEDDA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of both the sides, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) At the outset, it is submitted that as per the service report, respondent No.2 i.e. the original complainant is reported dead. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner do not want to bring the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.2 on record because the respondent No.2 filed criminal complaint bearing R.C.C. No. 331 of 2008 in the representative capacity and as such, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 23/1/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 139 of 2009 and 140 of 2009, arising out of the order dtd. 30/11/2009 passed below Exh.12 and order below Exh.1 in R.C.C. No.331 of 2008. Since the petitioner does not want to bring the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.2 on record, therefore the petition as against respondent No.2 is abated. Accordingly, the petitioner proceeded against the remaining respondents.

(3.) It is further submitted that during pendency of the present petition, respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 who are the original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, i.e. Respondent No.3 Naresh Nanakchand Agrawal, respondent No.4 Timma Somanna Wadar and respondent No.5 Ambubai w/o Shankar Dangar, reported to be died. Therefore, their names are deleted from the array of the respondents.