HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 357 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the material on record. 2. The present revision has been filled against the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Farrukhabad, in Criminal Revision No. 144 of 2023 (Victim Vs. Navneet Yadav and others) by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Farrukhabad, has allowed the revision filed by the opposite party no. 2. 3. In this backdrop, opposite party no. 2 moved revision against the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, before the court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, and the said order dated 13.07.2023 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad to consider the matter afresh, therefore, the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Farrukhabad, is under challenge. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that, there was a consensual relationship between the revisionist no. 1 and Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Kumar Tiwari, G.A. Navneet Yadav And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) opposite party no. 2, and the F.I.R. No. 0015 of 2021 was lodged against the revisionists under Sections 376, 328, 354, 406, 504, 506 IPC, in which the police has submitted a final report and against the said final report, the opposite party no. 2 moved protest petition on dated 03.09.2021, which came up for hearing before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. However, the said application moved by the opposite party no. 2 was not pressed and stated that she does not intend to pursue the said litigation and gave no objection in accepting the final report submitted by the police against the revisionists. The said application was supported by an affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2. However, thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 again moved an application stating therein that the earlier application dated 03.09.2021 was moved by her counsel and she herself, just signed the same, but affidavit was also annexed with the said application and thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 again moved protest petition on dated 13.12.2023, which was also dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad vide order dated 13.07.2023. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has submitted, that the order which has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Farrukhabad vide order dated 13.12.2023 in accordance with law, and an opportunity has been given to the revisionists to appear and argue before the concerned learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, and still it is open to the revisionists to take appropriate steps or evidence, if available with them to defend their case. 6. Having regard to the fact that, initially the F.I.R. No. 0015/2021 was lodged by opposite party no. 2 under Sections 376, 328, 354, 406, 504, 506 IPC, and final report was submitted by the police. Against the said final report, the opposite party no. 2 gave her consent and submitted that she does not intend to pursue the said litigation and on the basis of application made in writing supported by an affidavit dated 03.09.2021, the opposite party no. 2 herself freely and voluntarily gave no objection in accepting the said final report. However, later on, she moved another application, submitting another protest petition. So far as CRLR No. 357 of 2024 2 opposite party no. 2 is concerned, she is a major lady and is fully aware and understands about her good and bad and that of the case and circumstances, those have taken place in the said litigation. However, any litigation has come to an end and cannot be reopened by moving subsequent applications or affidavit on the same cause of action, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Once the opposite party no. 2 has freely and willingly submitted that she does not intend to pursue the litigation against the revisionists, by an application dated 03.09.2021 supported by an affidavit, she again cannot reopen the case merely stating certain averments that, she unknowingly moved an earlier application, wherein the final report was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. The order passed in earlier application has become final. 7. Under such circumstances, order dated 13.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Farrukhabad is illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, set aside. 8. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed. September 22, 2025 Vikram CRLR No. 357 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad