Patna High Court
SANGEETA DEVI @ SANGITA KUMARIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The appeal is not maintainable before the High Court and must be filed before the Sessions Court.
Summary
The victim, Sangeeta Devi, appealed to the Patna High Court against an acquittal by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑VI, Biharsharif in a 2005 complaint case involving charges under IPC sections 498‑A, 323, 379 and 34. The High Court examined the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 413 of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, which grant a victim the right to appeal but require the appeal to be filed in the court where an appeal ordinarily lies, i.e., the Sessions Court. The Court held that filing the appeal directly in the High Court was not permissible. The appellant’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal and re‑file it before the appropriate Sessions Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal, allowing the appellant to file a fresh appeal within one month and, if filed timely, to seek condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Issues considered
- Whether a victim can file an appeal against an acquittal directly in the High Court.
- Whether the proviso to Section 372 Cr.PC and Section 413 B.N.S. restricts the venue of such an appeal to the Sessions Court.
- Whether the appeal can be withdrawn and re‑filed in the competent court.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 413
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 372
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 379, 498-A
- Limitation Act — s. 14
Subjects
- criminal appeal
- victim's right to appeal
- acquittal
- jurisdiction
- Section 498-A
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Limitation Act
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5086 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-555 Year-2005 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nalanda
======================================================
Sangeeta Devi @ Sangita Kumari, D/O Ramdeo Prasad, W/O Dharmendra
Kumar, Resident of Village- Madakchak, P.S.- Rahui, Dist. Nalanda.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dharmendra Kumar Resident Of Vivek Vihar, Haridwar, Ps. Jwalapur, Dist.
Haridwar (UTTARAKHAND).
3. Rajendra Prasad Resident Of Vivek Vihar, Haridwar, Ps. Jwalapur, Dist.
Haridwar (uttarakhand).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mohan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
7 13-01-2026 The present Cr. Appeal has been preferred by the
victim/Complainant, Sangeeta Devi @ Sangeeta Kumari against
the judgment of acquittal dated 02.04.2019 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistratte-VI, Biharsharif in
Complaint Case No. 555C of 2005 whereby the appellant has
been acquitted of the charge framed under Section 498-A, 323,
379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The present appeal has been directly filed in this
Court against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistratte-VI, Biharshariff.
3. In my considered view, the present Appeal is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5086 of 2023(7) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
misconceived in view of the proviso to Section 372
Cr.PC/Proviso to Section 413 B.N.S. which reads as follows:-
“No appeal shall lie from any judgment or
order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by
this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in
force: Provided that the victim shall have a right to
prefer an appeal against any order passed by the
Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a
lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation,
and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an
appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction
of such Court.
4. It is crystal clear from the provisions that the victim
has absolute right to file an appeal in the Court to which an
Appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such
court.
5. It goes without saying that the impugned judgment
has been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate against whose
order an Appeal ordinarily lies before Sessions court, but instead
of filing Criminal Appeal before Sessions Court, the victim has
preferred an Appeal before this court which is not maintainable.
Reliance is placed on Smt. Suman Devi vs State of Bihar
reported in 2025 SCC Online Pat 1862.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the Appellant is
seeking permission to withdraw the present appeal with liberty
to file Criminal Appeal before learned Sessions Court.
7. Hence, the present Appeal is dismissed as not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5086 of 2023(7) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
withdrawn with liberty to file an Appeal before the competent
Court within a period of one month and when the Appeal is filed
within the stipulated time, learned court below will consider to
condone the delay in filing the Criminal Appeal under Section
14 of the limitation Act.
(Jitendra Kumar, J)
S.Ali/-
U T
Checking your session…