The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the State is usually entitled to file criminal revision in cases instituted by the police, a private person can also draw the attention of the High Court towards the findings of a subordinate court by filing a criminal revision, and the High Court can entertain a revision suo motu if sufficient facts are brought to its notice.

1. - This Criminal Revision filed by Pankaj Sharma is directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, dated 3.2.1999 whereby the learned Lower Court discharged the accused non-petitioner from the offence under Section 307 IPC and sent them to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, for trial under Section 228 Cr.PC.

2. In this revision, notices were issued to non-petitioners. Record was called for and the case was listed for final disposal.

3. First of all, the matter was heard on the preliminary objection raised by the Mr. R.S. Rathore, counsel for the non-petitioners that whether in a case instituted on a police report, private complainant can file revision against the order of discharge.

4. Mr. Rathore argues that sire the challan was filed by police and the case was instituted on police report, therefore, the complainant has no locus standi to file this criminal revision against the impugned order. In support of his arguments. Mr. Rathore placed reliance on Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 911 , Sawant Raj v. State of Rajasthan and another, 1979 Cr.L.R. (Raj. Supply) , B. Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1996 (1) Raj. 686 , Jagbir & another v. State of Punjab, (1998) 6 S.C.C. 629 and Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner submits that private complainant in such matter can file criminal revision and High Court can hear such criminal revision filed by the private complainant. In support of his arguments. Mr. Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Kaptan Singh and others v. State of M.P. and another, (1997) 6 SCC, 185 ; Lala Ram v. Idrish and others, 1998 WLC (Raj.) U.C. 670 , K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 1962 SC 1788 , Gurshinder Singh v. Joga Singh and another, 1999 SCC (Cr.) 1311 , and Ganga Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (2) RCC 559 .

6. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgments cited by them.

7. In Thakur Ram's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme court held that in a case which has proceeded on a police report, a private party has no locus standi. No doubt, the terms of Section 435 are very vide and he can even take up the matter suo motu. The Criminal law is not, however, to be used as an instrument of wreaking private vengence by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interest of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book.

8. After reading this judgment, I come to this conclusion that ordinarily in a case instituted on police report, a private party has no locus standi to file a criminal revision. But in this judgment, Hon. Supreme court has also held that 'No doubt, the terms of S. 435 are very wide and he can even take up the matter suo motu.' In this judgment, old Section 435 is referred which is equivalent to new Section 397, which is relating to Criminal Revision.Section 401 Cr.PC. reads as under :

401. High Court's powers to revision.-(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of session by section 307.

9. In this way, it is clear that High Court can entertain a revision suo motu if, sufficient facts are brought to its notice. In this connection the words as 'which otherwise comes to its knowledge' are also important.

10. In Bhupendra Kumar's case (supra), this Court has held that in criminal cases prosecution is launched by State and State is a party before the learned Magis