Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15784 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2226 of 2025 Applicant :- Aditya Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 B.N.S.S) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.01.2025, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C II, Raebareli, in S.T No. 1364 of 2023, Case Crime No. 36 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Dalmau, District Raebareli. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complainant/prosecutrix has lodged an F.I.R against the applicant in the above mentioned Sections alleging therein that the applicant had outraged her modesty not once but on more than 30 occasions by blackmailing her and threatening her to kill her father if she disclosed this fact to her family. The said allegation is totally false and is an outburst of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C filed by the applicant on 08.07.2022 against the complainant/prosecutrix alleging therein that the marriage was solemnised between the applicant and the complainant on 17.12.2020 and she had left the house of the applicant along with the ornaments and cash on 04.02.2022. In the said proceedings under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, summons were issued to the complainant/prosecutrix and she was granted bail by the trial court on 19.01.2023 and immediately thereafter, in an outburst, she lodged an F.I.R on 05.02.2023 and falsely implicated the applicant in the present case. 3. On the other hand, learned A.G.A has submitted that firstly, the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S is not maintainable as the applicant has not impleaded the complainant/prosecutrix, who is referred to as Madam X, as a necessary party, in the array of respondents, so for non- joinder of necessary parties, the present application is liable to be dismissed. Secondly, all these facts requires appreciation of evidence which cannot be seen in the present application. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the contents of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 528 (B.N.S.S) as this court cannot adjudicate its truthfulness as it requires leading of evidence, which can only be made in the trial pending before the court below. 5. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussions made hereinabove, no case for interference is made out in the order dated 27.01.2025, passed by the trial court rejecting the discharge application preferred by the applicant. 6. Hence, the present application is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench