JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, Senior learned Advocate assisted by Sri Rajshri Gupta, Sri R.K.S Chauhan and Sri Manish Singh, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Anurag Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri A.K. Sand, learned AGA-I assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Sandeep Shukla, Advocate assisted by Sri Rafat Raza Khan Advocate for the “proposed intervener” Sri B.P. Gautam.

2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties, and Counter affidavits have been filed by opposite party no.2 Sadhvi Chidarpita Gautam @ Ms Komal Gupta and Mr. Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. have filed their respective counter affidavits on behalf of the State which is already on record. Interestingly, an 'Intervening application' under Chapter XXII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules on behalf of Sri B.P. Gautam, filed by Sri Sandeep Shukla and Sri Rafat Raza Khan Advocate is also on record with the prayer to permit the applicant (Mr. B.P. Gautam, in the capacity of alleged husband of opposite party no.2) be also heard. At the outset, Sri Sandeep Shukla, Advocate was given fullest of the opportunity and audience by the court to establish his case and claim proposed respondent.

3. This petition, invoking extra-ordinary power of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 24.05.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in Case No. 1423 of 2011 (State v. Chinmayanand Saraswati), under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Shajahanpur is for judicial scrutiny, whereby the learned Magistrate has declined to accord permission to the application given by the Prosecuting Officer under section 321 Cr.P.C. i.e. withdrawal of prosecution against the applicant, named above. Thus, this is the focal issue of the entire controversy. In addition to this, since Sri B.P. Gautam, alleged husband of opposite party no. 2, has moved an “Intervening Application” to be impleaded and heard in the matter and therefore at the threshold stage, the disposal of aforesaid Intervening application is imperative as an ancillary issue to the primary one i.e. validity of the order dated 24.05.2018, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.

4. So far as Intervening application on behalf of Mr. B.P. Gautam S/o Naresh Pal Singh, alleged husband of Ms. Chidarpita Gautam @ Komal Gupta is concerned, it is relevant that opposite party no.2, the real victim, has already engaged her counsel, Sri Anurag Kumar Pandey, who has filed a detailed counter affidavit on her behalf and she is actively contesting the case on her behalf and at no point of time, she has ever authorized Mr. B.P. Gautam to contest the case on her behalf.

Disposal of the Intervening Application

5. The Court has perused the Intervening Application, sworn by Sri B.P. Gautam, who sought permission of the Court to intervene in the present application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., in addition to opposite party no. 2.

6. The Court wonders that when the victim herself is being duly represented in her count, then what is the locus standi of Mr. B.P. Gautam to intervene into the present issue. In this regard, the Court had an occasion to look into the definition of “victim” as provided under section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. which reads thus:

“victim” means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or commission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir.

7. In this regard, learned A.G.A submits that though in the year 2011, Mr. B.P. Gautam, a local journalist of Shahjahanpur/Budaun, married man, without divorcing his earlier wife, got married with Ms. Chidarpita Gautam@Komal Gupta but it seems that this relationship was full of turmoil, where Ms. Chidarpita Gautam@Komal Gupta initiated proceedings under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, a Divorce Petition under section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage A