Patna High Court
Baliram Yadav And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 21 July, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1961 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2016 Thana- BHORE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Baliram Yadav, Son of Verma Yadav R/v Sirisiya, Police Station-Bhorey,
District-Gopalganj.
2. Adalat Yadav, Son of Late Shiv Person Yadav R/v Sirisiya, Police Station-
Bhorey, District-Gopalganj.
3. Maya Yadav @ Maya Prasad Yadav, Son of Adalat YadavR/v Sirisiya, Police
Station-Bhorey, District-Gopalganj.
4. Umesh Yadav @ Umesh Kr. Yadav, Son of Adalat Yadav. R/v Sirisiya,
Police Station-Bhorey, District-Gopalganj.
5. Haresh Yadav, Son of Adalat Yadav R/v Sirisiya, Police Station-Bhorey,
District-Gopalganj.
6. Rita Devi, Wife of Balaram Yadav R/v Sirisiya, Police Station-Bhorey,
District-Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Raj Pati Devi, Wife of Paran Yadav, Resident of Village-Sirisiya, Police
Station- Bhorey, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Javed Aslam, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar no. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-07-2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present quashing petition has been
preferred to quash the order dated 26.07.2018 passed in Cr.
Revision No. 952 of 2017 as passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Gopalganj through which the
order dated 03.05.2017 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-XII,
Gopalganj in Bhorey P.S. Case No. 13 of 2016, Trial No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1961 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
2/5
1505 of 2017 was affirmed through which the learned
Magistrate was pleased to took cognizance against
petitioners under Section 435 of IPC.
3. As per prosecution case, Ramapati Devi filed a
complaint alleging that on 02.07.2015 at about 3:00 a.m.,
the accused persons abused her, set her hut on fire by
sprinkling kerosene, assaulted her daughter-in-law and
grandsons, and caused a loss of about ₹3 lakh. Despite
informing Bhorey Police Station, no action was taken, so she
filed a complaint, leading to the registration of Bhorey P.S.
Case No. 13/2016 for investigation.
4. Police after investigation submitted closure
report/ final form against petitioners.
5. On 16.01.2017 the O.P. No. 2 filed protest-
cum-complaint petition before learned trial court where
learned trial court, pleased to take cognizance for the offence
punishable under section 435 of the IPC after examining five
inquiry witnesses, which was challenged before the learned
Session Judge and was dismissed through impugned order
dated 26.07.2018 affirming the order of learned CJM,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1961 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
3/5
Gopalganj without going into the merit.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised sole
ground that impugned order of revision through which the
cognizance taken by learned CJM, Gopalganj, for the offence
punishable under section 435 of the IPC, was approved is
perverse for the reason that same was passed without
assigning any reason.
7. It is submitted that there is no absolute bar
that quashing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. not be
preferred against revision order, in view of Section 397(3) of
Cr.P.C. Learned counsel in support of his submission relied
upon para-5 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Kailash Verma Vs. Punjab State Civil
Supplies Corporation and Another, [(2005) 2 SCC
571], which is as under:-
5. It may also be noticed that this Court in
Rajathi 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1961 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
4/5serious 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.
8. In view of aforesaid it would be apposite to
reproduce para no. 3, 4 and 5 of the impugned judgment,
which is as under:-
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the
revisionist that the order passed by the learned
lower Court, dated 03-05-17 is bad in the eye of
law and learned lower Court has not applied his
judicial mind at the time of passing of the order. It
has further submitted that after perusal of the
deposition of enquiry witnesses it is clearly found
that no allegation made out U/s. 435 of the I.P.C.
against the revisionists and hence, order dated 3-5-
17 as passed by the learned lower Court is liable to
be set aside by allowing this revision.
4. I have gone through the entire materials facts of
the case and on its perusal I find that the order,
dated 3-5.17 as passed by learned A.C.J.M.XII,
Gopalganj in Bhorey P.S.case No. 13/16 /Trial no.
1505/17 is correct, legal and I find no any
infirmities and illegalities in the impugned order
dated 3.5.17 and hence, the same is fit to be
sustained and confirmed and this Revision petition
is liable to be dismissed.
5. In the result, the order, dated 03.05.17 as
passed by Learned A.C.J.M.XII, Gopalganj in Trial
No. 1505/17 is hereby sustained and confirmed and
this revision petition of the revisionists is hereby
dismissed. O/c is directed to send back the case
record to the concern Court along with this order
for
information and needful.
9. Taking note of aforesaid, it is convincing to this
Court that impugned order of revision dated 26.07.2018
affirming the cognizance order as passed by learned CJM,
Gopalganj for offence punishable under section 435 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1961 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
5/5
IPC against petitioners is without supplying any reason,
therefore, same is set aside with the direction to the learned
revisional court to pass a fresh order supplying reason. The
principle of “Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” must
be followed.
8. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if any.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 21.07.2026. Transmission Date 21.07.2026.
