JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 on repeated calls.

2. Notices issued upon opposite party nos. 3 and 4 have not been effected as they have already left the place. The petitioner has also not complied with the order dated 18.09.2023 for paper publication in local newspaper, however, affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that he has tried to serve the notice upon opposite party nos. 3 and 4, but they have left the place. In spite of the order of paper publication, the said order has not been complied with by the petitioner and he is enjoying the stay. Further, in view of nature of allegation, in absence of opposite party nos. 3 and 4, this matter can be disposed of. In view of that, this matter has been heard on merit in absence of opposite party nos. 3 and 4.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 27.01.2016 passed in C/1 Case No.1289 of 2015, whereby, cognizance has been taken against