JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 9.2-1983 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsarnand whereby the learned Judge has accepted the revision petition filed by accused-non-petitioners No. 1 to 10 and set aside the order of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara dated 4-9-1982, by which, the learned Magistrate has ordered for summoning the witless Dr. Shreemsli under s. 311 Cr. PC. 2. In this case, challan was filed against the accused-non-petitioners for commission of the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 324 and 323 IPC. The learned Magistrate framed the charge against the accused non-petitioners for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 3i3, 324 and 32 IPC. In this case, certain witnesses were injured and one of the injuries found on the person of victim Narayanlal was found to be grevious blow. There was a fracture of the upper and of the humerous and one of the injury of Gapi Lal @ Gopai resulted in the comtnunated fracture of his left tibia bone. When the case was pending for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, a request was math to summon the radiologist who has X-rayed the injuries of Narayanlal & Gopilal @ Gopal. Opportunity was granted to the prosecution to do that but in spite of best efforts of the prosecution, it was reported that the X-ray plates and the X-ray reading reports were missing because the record was not available. The occurrence took place on 14.9 1975. Consequently, the prosecution closed its evidence. The statements of the accused-nor -petitioners were recorded and their defence was also taken and then the case was finally argued and was listed for final disposal. 3. An application was filed by the A.P.P. that X-ray plates & copies of the X-ray reading reports have not been obtained &, therefore, Dr. Shreemali be ordered to be summoned. This request was made by the A.P.P. on 15.2.1982. It reply was filed on 16-3-1982. After hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate ordered that the radiologist Dr. Shreemali be summoned. However, a revision was filed against that order and the learned revisional court came to the conclusion that the order of the learned Magistrate is wrong and Dr. Shreemali should not be allowed to be summoned on the ground that Dr. After hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate ordered that the radiologist Dr. Shreemali be summoned. However, a revision was filed against that order and the learned revisional court came to the conclusion that the order of the learned Magistrate is wrong and Dr. Shreemali should not be allowed to be summoned on the ground that Dr. Shreemali was never cited as a witness of the prosecution and moreover, the evidence of the parties have been closed and the case is listed for judgment. The A.P.P. was provided with full opportunity to produce the X-ray plates and X-ray reading reports but that opportunity was not utilised by the prosecution on the ground that the record is not available. The learned revisional court held that when the earlier opportunity was not availed by the prosecution, it cannot again be allowed to examine a witnesses. It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed. 4. I have heard Mr. N.N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.S. Shishodia, the learned counsel appearing for non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 10 and Mrs. Chandralekha learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. Mr. I.S. Shishodia, learned counsel appearing for accused-non-petitioners has raised a preliminary objection that in this case the application to summon Dr. Shreemali to prove the X ray reading reports and X ray plates has been filed by the A.P.P. and that application has been accepted by the learned Magistrate but later on, revision, it was rejected by the learned Judge and this revision petition has been filed by a private complainant, who has no locus standis to file such a revision. In support of his submission, he has places reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Thakurram v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 911 where in it has been observed ; "In a case which has proceeded on a police report a private p try had no locus standi, No doubt, the trams of s. 435 are vary wile and he can even take up the matter sun mote The criminal law is not, however, to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the per:on, who according to that party had caused injury to it. Barring a re N 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." Thakurram's case (supra) was followed by this Court in Brahmanand v. State, AIR 1970 Raj. 220 wherein it was observed "Where a case proceeds on a police report, a private party has no locus standi It is correct that the provisions of s. 435, Cr. PC are wide enough, but the criminal law is not to be used as an instrument to wreck private vengeance. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters, the party who is treated as an aggrieved party is the State, which is the ultimate custodian of the social interests of the community at large. It is, therefore, for the State to take requisite steps for bringing the accused persons to back. See AIR 1966 SC 911 . In this case the State did not feel aggrieved against the order of the Magistrate and hence it did not move any revision petition against it, This aspect of the matter was not kept in view by learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. Brahmanand's case (supra) carne to be noticed by another learned single Judge of this Court in Bhanmarlal v. State, 1983 RLR 966 wherein it has been held that in a police case, the complainant had no locus standi to file revision. 6. Mr. M.C. Bishnoi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it is not inflexible rule that in every case which is instituted by the police report, a revision cannot be filed by a private party. Even their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that barring a few exception, in criminal matters, the party who is treated as an aggrieved party is the State, which is the ultimate custodian of the social interests of the community at large. In this case, the victims were severally beaten and fractures were caused to them. Even their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that barring a few exception, in criminal matters, the party who is treated as an aggrieved party is the State, which is the ultimate custodian of the social interests of the community at large. In this case, the victims were severally beaten and fractures were caused to them. Of course, the State filed an application for summoning the Doctor and when revision against that order has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, the State did not came up before this Court and, therefore, the complainant has filed this revision petition, and in suitable cases, the revision petition filed on behalf of the complainant can also be entertained In this respect, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Umed Singh v. Devisingh, 1984 RLR 782 wherein a revision under sc. 397/401 Cr. PC was entertained by this Court at the request of the complainant. That was also a case where after closure of the prosecution and defence evidence, the prosecution moved an application under s. 311 Cr. PC praying that the Doctor be summoned. The trial court rejected that application. Complainant filed a revision in the High Court and a learned single Judge of this Court felt that a revision at the instance of the complainant can be entertained even though the prosecution has not come forward. Mr. Bishnoi has, therefore, submitted that revision by a private party is not totally barred in such matters. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. Actually, in Umedsingh's case (supra), the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in That currant's ease ((twirl) and the decision of this Court in Brahmanand's case (supra) and Bhanwarlars case (supra) were not brought to the notice of the Court. 8. Mr. M C. Bishnoi, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-petitioner has submitted that the injuries caused to victims Narayanlal and Gopilal were grevious in nature arid, therefore, summoning of the Doctor was essential for the just decisions of the case and in suitable case, such an opportunity should be granted to the parties to produce evidence even after the closure of the evidence. Section 311 Cr. Section 311 Cr. PC used the word 'at any stage', which means that there is no limitation on the power of the Court arising from the stage to which trial may have reached provided the Court is bonafide of the opinion that for the just decision of the case, the step must be taken. It is clear that the requirement of just decisions of the case does not limit the action to something in the interest of the accused only. The action may actually benefit the prosecution. In this respect, reliance has been placed on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jamatraj v. State of Mah, AIR 1968 SC 178 Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Kamal Oil & Alliet Ind. Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Administration, 1982 Cr. LI 2201 wherein it has been observed that the words 'at any stage of enquiry, trial, or other proceedings' appearing in the section leave no room for doubt that the Magistrate to can summon and examine any witness as a court witness at any stage till he pronounces final judgment Mr. Bishnoi, has therefore, submitted that in this case, summoning of the Doctor Shreemali is essential for the just decision of the case and, therefore, Doctor Shreemali should be called and examined. 9. In rebuttal, Mr. Shishadia, the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner has submitted that summoning of Doctor Shreemali in this case will be an abuse of the process of the court. The incident took place in the year 1975. The accused is facing trial for the past about 13 years for an accusation of the offences under sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC. The prosecution was provided with full opportunity to produce the record of the case and to examine the Doctor but it did not avail that opportunity on the ground that necessary record is not available. The prosecution was well aware of the fact that victims have received grevious injuries and still, it has failed to cite the Doctor as prosecution witness inspite of granting opportunity by the Court. Even now only certified copy of the X-ray reading report has been filed. The X-ray plates have not been filed and, therefore, these X ray reading reports which are based on X-ray plates cannot be allowed to be proved till the X-ray plates are made available. Even now only certified copy of the X-ray reading report has been filed. The X-ray plates have not been filed and, therefore, these X ray reading reports which are based on X-ray plates cannot be allowed to be proved till the X-ray plates are made available. He has, therefore, submitted that allowing the prosecution to examine Dr. Shreemali at this stage will cause unnecessarily harassment to the accused who have already faced trial for the past about 13 years and so, if this revision petition is accepted, it will actually amount to an abuse of the process of the court In this respect, reliance was placed on a decision of the Patna High Court in Madheshwardhari Singh v. State (AIR 1986 Patna 324) . I have gone through this decision. I am afraid, I cannot wholly subscribe to the view taken in this decision in its entirety. 10. In petty cases of simple or grevious hurt, some times the Court may feel disinclined to prolong the trial of the case because that may amount to an abuse of the process of the court. This has happened in a case of this Court in Motisingh v. State, 1908 (1) WLN 179 where none of the witnesses examined under s. 200 Cr. PC was consistent in between themselves and also with the FIR with regard to persons who actually gave fist blows and slaps to the victim. In web circumstances this court felt that it would be nothing but permitting the Court proceeding to degenerate into a weapon of harassment to the petitioners, if the prosecution is allowed to be continued on a complaint which has been filed more than 11 years of the lodging of the First Information Report and of the incident and on the basis of which process has been ordered to be issued after 16 years. It was held that in view of the above extraordinary and peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case further continuance of proceedings after more than 171/2 years of the incident against the petitioners. However, the learned Judge who decided Motisingh v. State (supra), has observed in Mangilal Vyas v. State, 1987 Cr. LR 325 that in cases of embezzlement, the quashing of proceeding will not be in the interests of justice. 11. However, the learned Judge who decided Motisingh v. State (supra), has observed in Mangilal Vyas v. State, 1987 Cr. LR 325 that in cases of embezzlement, the quashing of proceeding will not be in the interests of justice. 11. In A. R. Antulay v. R.S Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that the Court must remind that purity of public life is one of the cardinal principles which must be upheld as a matter of public policy. Allegations of legal infractions and criminal infractions must be investigated in accordance with law and procedure established under the Constitution. That was a case where the Chief Minister of Maharashtra was accused of certain misdeeds and that was a question of public importance. Thus, these observations have no application to the facts of the present case. Here, it is a simple matter regarding examination of the Doctor after the lapse of about 13 years and the name of that Doctor has not been cited as a witness and he has also not been produces instead of giving sufficient opportunity to the prosecution and even now, the X-ray plates which form the basis of the X ray reading reports are not before the Court and, therefore, granting an opportunity to the prosecution to examine this witness as a court witness in absence of the X ray plates will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court because the accused will not be able properly cross-examine the witness and trial will unnecessarily be lengthened if time is granted to the prosecution to trace out the X-ray plates 12. In the result, 1 finds force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******