Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109854 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24017 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Suman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shahbaz Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shahbaz Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A-I. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing of the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.06 in Case Crime No.458 of 2023, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad. 3. In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged by the applicant against opposite party no.2 on 28.06.2023 with the allegation of committing rape and threatening in which after investigation a final report was submitted by the I.O. on 15.08.2023, against which the applicant has filed a protest petition, which has been rejected vide order dated 25.03.2025. The order dated 25.03.2025 has been assailed by means of instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per FIR, the husband of the applicant was witness but his statements were not recorded not only this but some important witnesses have also not been examined by the I.O. He further submits that in such a heinous offence opposite party no.2 has easily escaped by using his power. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature as the applicant was the tenant of opposite party no.2 and when she was asked to vacate the property, she has lodged a false and fabricated case. He further submits that during investigation CDR of the informant was examined wherein there was difference in the location of the informant and opposite party no.2. He further submits that the protest petition cannot be entertained only to carry out a fishing and roving inquiry. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Evidently, the applicant was the tenant, who has lodged an FIR in which detailed investigation was carried out, the CDR was looked into, thereafter, a final report was filed. It seems that the applicant has filed the protest petition just to put undue pressure on opposite party no.2, which has been rejected by a detailed order considering every aspect of the case. I see on illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad