Order. — This petition arises out of an order by the Sessions Judge at Bidar in Misc. Case No. 38 of 1970 The petitioner herein moved that Court practically asking for a review of the order made by that Court under section 494, Criminal Procedure Code, in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1969. The said order was made under section 494, Criminal Procedure Code, as a result of the Public Prosecutor filing an application of withdrawal from the prosecution. 2. The petitioner, it would appear was the complainant before the police. The case, after enquiry, stood committed to the Court of Sessions at Bidar. It was then that the Public Prosecutor filed the necessary application under section 494, Criminal Procedure Code, with the aforesaid result. The petitioner herein, then moved the application before that Court for the relief aforementioned. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the application. Hence, this petition. 3. It seems to me that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is clearly right and does not call for interference in the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. That a person in the position of a petitioner had no locus standi, is now settled by the decision of the Supreme Court In Thakur Ram and others v. The Slate of Bihar 1 , on which strong reliance was placed by the learned Government Pleader. The relevant enunciation is as follows, and occurs at para. 9 of the aforesaid report: “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 wide 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 vengeance by an aggrieved party against the persons 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 interests 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.” 4. In view of the above enunciation, this petition fails and is dismissed. 1. (1966) M.L.J. (Crl.) 589: (1966) 2 S.C.J. 438: (1966) 2 S.C.R. 740 : A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 911. S.V.S. ----- Petition dismissed.