HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 527 of 2025 Court No. - 42 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. This appeal against acquittal by the complainant under Section 413 B.N.S.S. is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar dated 11.07.2025 in Sessions Case No. 751 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2023) under Sections 376, 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar and connected Sessions Case No. 218 of 2024 (arising out of the same crime number) under Sections 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, acquitting the second opposite party of all charges in both cases. Heard Mr. Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the motion to admit this appeal to hearing and Mr. K.K. Nishad, learned State Law Officer appearing on behalf of the State. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the impugned judgment is perverse and takes a view of the matter which no reasonable person could do in order to enter a judgment of acquittal. We have perused the impugned judgment. This is a case, where admittedly, according to the prosecutrix, the relationship between parties stretched across a period of more than five years, where they stayed together contemplating marriage. The testimony of the prosecutrix shows that this is a case, which does not show the second opposite party harbouring an intention to cheat from the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amit Kumar, Vijay Bahadur Shivhare Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Dharana Sabbarwal .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) commencement of the relationship. It is a case, where parties were not able to work out their relationship, which could not fructify into marriage or a lasting relationship together. The allegations of ravishment etc. reported are late in the day, which appear to be based on afterthought and may be to spite the other side because the relationship did not work out. While this kind of a case may be unfortunate for one party or both, there is ex facie no offence involved. The Trial Court has taken a reasonable view of the evidence and we do not find any reason to think that the Trial Court's evaluation of the evidence is, in any manner, perverse. Even if a different view of the evidence is possible regarding which the learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant has endeavoured to persuade us, the law seems well settled that if twoviews on the evidence are possible, that is not enough to reopen acquittal. In the result we do not find this to be a fit case to interfere. The appeal is summarily dismissed. October 6, 2025 Deepak NC413 No. 527 of 2025 2 (Sanjiv Kumar, J.) (J.J. Munir, J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad