Veena Vatsayan vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9313 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2009 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Veena Vatsayan S/o Dipanker Vatasayan R/o Village- Ughara, P.S-
Bahadurpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nityanand Jha, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-09-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
the order dated 31.10.2018, passed by learned District and Sessions
Judge, Darbhanga in Cr. Rev. No. 377/2018 by which revision
petition of the petitioner was dismissed and also setting aside order
st
dated 21.07.2018 passed by learned JM 1 Class, Darbhanga in
connection with Bahadurpur (Pator) P.S. Case No. 168/2009 bearing
G.R. No. 1495/2009, Trial No. 1264/2018, where learned Magistrate
rejected the petition dated 11.08.2017 filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
on behalf of informant/petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the examination of IO, doctor, informant and other
witnesses is essential for “just decision” of this case within the
meaning of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that till now
only two witnesses were examined in this case and therefore,
impugned order dated 11.08.2017 through which the petitions of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9313 of 2019 dt.03-09-2026
2/4
petitioner as filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected is fit
to be quashed/set aside. It is submitted that even the Revisional Court
failed to appreciate the spirit of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Learned APP, while opposing the petition submitted that
the present petition was brought against revisional order passed
under Section 397 and 339 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that present
petitioner is amounting to second revision petition, which is barred
under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. However, learned APP fairly
conceded that quashing petition can be preferred against revisional
order, if it appears so perverse, in view of legal report of Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through Kailash Verma Vs. Punjab
State Civil Supplies Corporation and Another, [(2005) 2 SCC
571].
5. It would be apposite to reproduce para no. 7 of the
impugned order, which is as under :-
“7. After hearing both the parties and perusing
the case record, it appears that despite taking
almost all efforts by the court itself the
prosecution failed to adduce evidence. It further
appears that accused were summoned for non-
cognizable offences and for which the
complainant himself should be attentive to adduce
evidence before the court. The learned Magistrate
has given ample opportunity for adducing
evidence to the prosecution. The learned
Magistrate has passed reasoned order which does
not require any interference.”
6. It would be apposite to reproduce para-5 of the Kailash
Verma Case (supra) , which is as under:-
5. It may also be noticed that this Court in Rajathi

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9313 of 2019 dt.03-09-2026
3/4
v. C. Ganesan, [(1999) 6 SCC 326] said that the
power under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code has to be exercised sparingly and
such power shall not be utilised as a substitute for
second revision. Ordinarily, when a revision has
been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the
complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to
take recourse to revision before the High Court
under Section 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure
Code as it is prohibited under Section 397(3)
thereof. However, the High Court can entertain a
petition under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code when there is serious miscarriage
of justice and abuse of the process of the court or
when mandatory provisions of law are not
complied with and when the High Court feels that
the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to
correct the mistake committed by the revisional
court.
7. It appears from the order that the offence alleged is
non-cognizable in nature. It also appears that till date even informant
failed to examine herself, before the court of law, particularly when
matter is of year 2009, despite giving several opportunities by the
learned trial court. Certainly the proceedings cannot be continued for
indefinite period of time due to non-vigilant approach of the
informant.
8. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal submission,
this court is convinced enough that the impugned order as passed by
Revisional Court dated 31.10.2018 is well reasoned and cannot be
categorized as perverse order, so as to interfere while exercising the
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, impugned order of
revision cannot be said perverse to the extent as to compel this Court
to exercise its inherent power in view of Kailash Verma Case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9313 of 2019 dt.03-09-2026
4/4
(supra) .
9. Accordingly, the aforesaid impugned order need not
be interfered with.
10. The present petition stands dismissed being devoid
of any merit.
11. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned
trial court forthwith.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.09.2026
Transmission Date 03.09.2026