Advocates:
['RAJRSHI GUPTA', '', 'MANISH SINGH', 'RAJ KUMAR SINGH CHAUHAN', 'DILEEP KUMAR', 'G A', '', 'VEERENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA', 'SUNDEEP SHUKLA', 'RAFAT RAZA KHAN', 'ANURAG KUMAR PANDEY']

(1)

A.F.R.

Reserved on 29.07.2022

Delivered on 30.09.2022

Court No.67

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23160 of 2018

Applicant :- Swami Chinmayanand Saraswati

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Dileep Kumar,Manish Singh,Raj

Kumar Singh Chauhan

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Kumar Pandey,Rafat Raza

Khan,Sundeep Shukla,Veerendra Kumar Shukla

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

[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

(2)

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

audiance 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,

(3)

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 an