JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

3. In this application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant, who is arrayed as an accused No. 2 in the complaint, has challenged the order dated 04.02.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Court No. 4), Hinganghat, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue the process against the two accused including the applicant being accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the I.P.C.

4. The facts are as follows:

The non-applicant is the original complainant (hereinafter referred to as a complainant). The accused No. 2 will be referred to as the applicant. The applicant is the practicing advocate. The accused No. 1 and complainant are related to each other. Accused No. 1 is residing in London. The applicant is residing at Nagpur. It is the case of the complainant that the applicant on behalf of his client/accused No. 1 issued a notice and published the same in a daily newspaper Dainik Bhasker dated 10.10.2015. It was stated in the notice that the power of attorney gi