IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49740 of 2007 BUDHINATH MANDAL, son of late Bahuran Mandal, resident of village Pothia, P.S. Falka (Pothia), District Katihar Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, Patna 2. Shanti Devi, wife of Dinesh Sah, resident of village Pothia, P.S. Falka (Pothia), District Katihar ----------- 4. 29.3.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of remand passed by Revisional Court in relation to order taking cognizance for offence under Section 354 IPC by the trial court at the instance of the complainant has questioned the properity power and jurisdiction of the Revisional Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 3. In the opinion of this Court the scope of judicial review of this Court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. itself being very limited. It must be held that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order especially with regard to such orders of revisional court wherein nothing conclusive has been decided and the matter in fact has been remitted by the revisional court to the trial court. In 2 view of the fact that the revisional court had on appreciation of materials on record had held that the matter required reconsideration by trial court, this Court could have interfered with such revisional order only if it would find the same to be legally or factually unsustainable. 4. Presently in this case the trial court had taken cognizance for the alleged offence under section 354 I.P.C. but then the victim lady being prosecutrix had moved the revisional court with her case that there were sufficient materials for constituting offence of rape under section 376 I.P.C. The revisional court has only gone to examine such allegations and having found them to have not been taken into consideration by the trial court has set aside the order taking cognizance under section 354 I.P.C. and remitted the matter back for reconsideration by the trial court. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court nothing can be done in such circumstances as the matter still remains pending for consideration before the trial court. 3 6. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is aggrieved by an order taking cognizance under section 376 I.P.C. he will have also remedy as is available in law. 7. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/