A Magistrate has jurisdiction to review his order taking cognizance of offenses against a person and summoning him as an accused in the case. However, a private party does not have locus standi to file a revision petition in a case proceeded on a police report, unless there are exceptions to this rule. Applications under Section 319, CrPC should be moved at the earliest occasion so that there may not be unnecessary delay in the trial of criminal cases.

M.A.A. Khan, J.-In this case Rain Narain complainant-respondent had submitted a written report against the petitioners and one Kishan Lal for their having committed the offences punishable Under Sections 147, 451 and 323, IPC. On his report the police registered Crime No. 31/1987 and after investigation submitted a report under Section 173, CrPC against Kishan Lal only. A negative report Under Section 169, CrPC had been submitted against the present petitioners. Ram Narain appears to have filed a complaint against the present petitioners and the aforesaid Kishan Lal. By that time the police report Under Section 173, CrPC had already been received on 24-4-87 against Kishan Lal aforesaid. The learned Magistrate, therefore, directed that the complaint filed by Ram Narain be put up with the police case. It appears that after having examined all the 7 material witnesses in the case the Public Prosecutor incharge of the police case moved an application Under Section 319, CrPC requiring the learned Magistrate to summon the present petitioners as co-accused in the case. Ram Narain complainant also moved a similar application on 11-2-1988. By his order dated 26-7-88 the learned Magistrate accepted the prayer of the Public Prosecutor and Ram Narain complainant and summoned the present petitioners as co-accused in the case to answer the charges for the offences Under Sections 147, 323, 451 and 324, IPC. This order passed by the learned Magistrate appears to have been challenged by the present petitioners before this Court by way of a revision Under Section 397, CrPC the said petition appears to have been dismissed by the Court in default of prosecution by the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed a petition Under Section 482, CrPC for recalling the order passed by this Court dismissing their petition Under Section 397, CrPC. This Court disposed of their petition Under Section 482, CrPC with the observations that the petitioners would be entitled to raise the same objection before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate thereupon heard the parties over the justification of his order dated 26-7-8 8 taking cognizance of the offences Under Sections 147, 323, 451 and 324, IPC against the petitioners and summoning them as co-accused in the case. By his order dated 7-3-90 the learned Magistrate held that there were no sufficient grounds for taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and summoning them as co-accused in the case. He accordingly dismissed prosecutor’s and Ram Narain’s application Under Section 319, CrPC and discharged the petitioners. The order so passed by the learned Magistrate on 7-3-90 was challenged in a revision petition filed before the learned Sessions Judge. By his impugned order dated 2 1-7-90 the learned Sessions Judge held that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to review or revise his earlier order dated 26-7-8 8. On the basis of the same evidence which had been considered good and sufficient by him tor summoning the petitioners as co-accused in the case at an earlier occasion. Holding thus the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 7-3-90 and directed him to proceed further in the matter according to law. It is that order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 2 1-7-90 which is being challenged by the petitioners through this petition Under Section 397, CrPC.

2. Mr. S.R. Bajwa, the learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced three fold arguments. In the first place the learned counsel urged that the learned Sessions Judge erred in entertaining the petition Under Section 397, CrPC on the application of a private party. It was submitted that in a case instituted on police report a private party has no locus standi to invoke revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions or this Court. In support of such contention Mr. Bajwa relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Thakur Ram vs. State of Bihar AIR 19