CHARANJEET CHANDERPAL Vs. DHARINI NARENDRA NAGDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with 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 respondentNo.1/complainant. 135 136 2020(2) Charanjeet Chanderpal v. Dharini N. Nagda 136 2020(2) Charanjeet Chanderpal v. Dharini N. Nagda The 3rd andthe 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.