SWAMI CHINMAYANAND SARASWATI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(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 audiance by the court to establish his case and claim proposed respondent.

(3.) This petition, invoking extra-ordinary power of the Court under sec. 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the legality and validity of the order dtd. 24/5/2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in Case No. 1423 of 2011 (State v. Chinmayanand Saraswati), under Ss. 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 sec. 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 dtd. 24/5/2018, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.