FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.26 OF 2010 Mr.Manoj Kumar Poddar : Petitioner/Orig.Accused no.1 V/s. Naresh Dattaram Kadam & Anr. : Respondents Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr.Niteen Pradhan i/b. Ms S. Khot for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Havnur for respondent no.1. Ms A.T.Jhaveri, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : APRIL 19, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was not concerned with Ralli Wolf Ltd., he has been incorrectly impleaded as an accused in complaint Ref.: 36/I&R/2009. -: 2 :- 3. The learned counsel for the respondent- complainant, on instructions, makes a statement that the complainant does not wish to prosecute the complaint against the present petitioner and seeks to delete the present petitioner from the array of respondents. 4. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c). Consequently, the petitioner shall stand discharged from the said complaint as accused no.1. Needless to state that the complaint shall proceed, in accordance with law, insofar as the other accused are concerned. B.R. GAVAI, J.