R.R. Prasad, J.

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier in the writ application the informant was impleaded as respondent No. 2 inadvertently as the case arising of a police case is well represented through the state of Jharkhand on whose behalf even a counter affidavit has been filed and, therefore, the petitioner though the proper to delete the name of the informant (respondent No. 2) as the informant is being well represented by the State of Jharkhand and the disposal of the case would be delayed on account of non service of notice upon respondent No. 2. and therefore under this situation prayer has been made to delete the name of respondent No. 2.

3. In the facts and circumstances as stated above the name of respondent No. 2 is allowed to be deleted from the memo of application.

4. Accordingly, the prayer's allowed.

5. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State on the merit of the case.

6. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the first information