JUDGMENT :

1. At the very outset, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that she may be permitted to withdraw the prayer clause ‘c’ and the same may be permitted to be deleted.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection to the contention aforesaid.

3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the applicant’s counsel is permitted to withdraw the prayer clause ‘c’ with further permission of deleting the same during the course of the day.

4. Heard, Ms. Neha Rashmi and Gantavya, learned counsels for the applicants, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material placed on record.

5. By means of the present application, prayer has been made to set-aside the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 in S.T. No. 375 of 2007 (State Vs. Sunit Tehlyan and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 25 of 2005, under Section 302, 304 B, 201, 498 A r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 30 of Arms Act, P.S. Manak Nagar, District Lucknow and further prayer is made that the applicant nos. 1 to 3 may be treated as the legal heirs of the victim, as applicant no. 1 is real uncle of the deceased and the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the parents.

6. Brief factual matrix of the case is that on 25.04.2001, the niece of applicant no. 1, namely, Vanshika performed marriage with the respondent no. 3, namely, Sumit Tehilyani and on the demand of the accused persons, the applicants had given lucrative gifts and articles to them at the time of marriage including TV, Jewellery, Motorcycle and the deceased Vanshika was residing in her matrimonial home at Lucknow with the accused persons, i.e., respondent nos. 3 to 9.

7. Shortly, after the marriage, the respondent no. 3 and his family members started committing cruelty with the deceased, whereby, making demands of dowry and the deceased was threatened for dire consequences, if she and the applicant and the family members are failed to satisfy the demand of the accused persons. This was kept on intimating to the applicants but the family members of the deceased always tried to make understand the accused persons that whatsoever was available to them, they have given at the time of the marriage and they are not in a position to provide them whatever is being demanded as dowry and in the meantime, on 11.10.2002, the deceased, Vanshika gave birth to a female child, namely, Monish Tehliani and even after birth of the child there was no change in the behavior of the accused persons and even the deceased Vanshika was deprived from food and water and was kept isolated from her family members. The deceased, Vanshika and her daughter, Monish Tehliani were last seen alive on 06.05.2005, in the matrimonial home at Lucknow as there was the birthday of Vanshika and thus the accused persons permitted the parents to talk for a short while at 12:12 P.M. on landline phone and during the conversation, it was felt that she was feeling terrified and during the course of the conversation, the phone was snatched from her and that was disconnected and thereafter numerous attempts were made to contact the deceased Vanshika and accused persons but that was in vain and ultimately, at 8:45 P.M., respondent no. 3 casually informed that he had killed Vanshika and fatally shot Monish Tehliani and as a result Vanshika died and the daughter of Vanshika, Monish Tehliani succumbed injuries. As the accused are very influential persons of the city and thus under their pressure, the Police was avoiding to lodge the First Information Report of the incident. The investigation was transferred multiple times and thereafter the charge-sheet was filed and the trial proceeded any how.

8. Further, on 02.09.2022, the applicants showing them as victim filed an application to represent themselves through their counsel before the trial Court which was allowed on 14.12.2022 and thereafter on several dates, the counsel of the victims/informants/applicants made submi