RUCHI MITTAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

(2.) This application has been moved under Sec. 482 CrPC to set aside the order dtd. 25/7/2022 passed by ACJM-I, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.462 of 2021 (old No.343 of 2021, Smt. Ruchi Mittal Vs. Amit Mittal and others), under Sec. 156(3) CrPC treating the application under Sec. 156(3) CrPC to be a complaint case. It is also prayed that after setting aside the impugned order, a fresh order directing the police to register the case and start investigation and to submit investigation report. Alternatively, a prayer is also made to direct the ACJM-I, Gautam Budh Nagar to hear and decide the aforementioned application under Sec. 156(3) CrPC within a stipulated period of time.

(3.) At the very outset before entering into merit it would be proper to mention that Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, learned counsel appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 without any notice about which it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has no locus to appear and argue in the matter. He also pointed out the ordersheet in which earlier on 17/10/2022 it is observed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court that it is not a revision and Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned counsel (who appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2) has no locus. However, after closer of the argument the learned counsel for the applicant had not opposed the presence, appearance and argument of Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.