JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner complainant has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against an order of District and Session Judge, Churu dated 3.3.93 in Sessions case No. 4/90 whereby the Learned Sessions Judge discharged the non petitioners. They were accused of the offence under Section 3(1) (iv) and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 hereinafter referred to as the Act) and transferred the case to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh for trial under Section 228 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner/complainant submitted a written report to the Station House Officer Police Station, Sujangarh on 23.6.1990 at 8 p.m. in which she alleged that on 23.6.1990 at about 9 a.m. She and her mother-in-law Smt. Singari were in their Dhani which is situated in their field. Suddenly all the accused persons trespassed into the field and shouted "Sale Dhedhon Ko maro" and began to beat her mother-in-law. The complainant came to her rescue but the accused also assaulted her. The accused also dismantled the Jhompra and also removed the bar' and threw all her belongings out of her Jhompra. The accused further destroyed her Bajra crop by rolling tractor over it. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the field was in her possession and cultivation at the relevant time. On this report FIR No.77/90 under Section 447, 427, 323, 147, 149 IPC and Section 3(1) (iv) (v) of the Act was registered against the accused. After investigation the chargesheet was submitted against all the accused persons for the aforesaid offence in the court of Munsif and Judicial in the Sujangarh on 3.8.90 who committed the case to the Court of Session Judge, Churu on the same date. The Learned Sessions Judge, Churu after hearing arguments, vide his order dated 3.3.93, found that no offence under Section 3(1) (iv) and (v) of the Act was prima facie made out. He therefore, discharged all the accuseds of the above offence. Since the other remaining offences were triable by the Magistrate of the 1st class the learned Sessions Judge sent the case for trial to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh under Section 228 Cr.RC. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PR for the non-petitioners. Since the other remaining offences were triable by the Magistrate of the 1st class the learned Sessions Judge sent the case for trial to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh under Section 228 Cr.RC. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PR for the non-petitioners. Learned counsel for the non petitioners has raised a primarily objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition on the ground that the case was instituted on a Police report, the challan was filed and the case was then committed to the Court of Session. The order discharging her was passed. The revision petition was filed by a private party and she had no locus standi to do so. This point was decided by the Supreme Court in Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 911 and Narayan Lal v. Bhanwar Lal and Ors., reported in Criminal Law Reporter (Raj.) 674 . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that the Supreme Court even in the above case has not placed a total ban on the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court and the revision has not been filed with a view to wreck vengeance against the opposite party. The petitioner has come in order to vindicate her right which has been destroyed by the erroneous discharging order passed by the learned Session Judge. He has placed reliance on cases Akbar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1989 (1) RLR 102 & Kajor v. Ramu and Ors. 1984 RCC 167 . Meenakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar and Ors. reported in 1994 Criminal Law Reporter SC 589 , Dharam v. Nirmal Singh reported in 1996, Criminal Law Reporter SC 202 . 5. With regard to the above facts I may refer the observations made by the Supreme Court in Thakur Ram's case (supra). It was observed "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 wrecking vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who according to that party, had caused injury to it. 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 wrecking vengeance 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 interests of the community at large and so it is 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''. 6. The above view was followed by our High Court in the cases cited before me. In Narayan Lal v. Bhanwar Lal and Ors. and Akbar v. State of Rajasthan it was held that the High Court can entertain revision and the power has not been taken away by the observations made in Thakur Ram's case. From the above facts it is clear that in Thakur Ram's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in case which has proceeded on a police report a private party has no locus standi. It was conceded that the terms of Section 435 are very vide and the Court can take up the matter suo motu. Then a restriction was recorded that the criminal law is not however to be used as an instrument to wreck vengeance private by a aggrieved party against her. It was then observed that the power must be exercised with care and caution and with due circumspection. Thus it can be stated that no total embargo has been placed on the power of the High Court to entertain a revision petition filed by the party even in the case which was initiated on a police report. However, the powers must be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted on merits that there has been a dispute between the parties and litigation has been going on for years. However, the facts are that the petitioner has been in possession of the above land when this alleged offence took place. The accused forcibly dispossessed after assaulting the complainant and her mother-in-law. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted on merits that there has been a dispute between the parties and litigation has been going on for years. However, the facts are that the petitioner has been in possession of the above land when this alleged offence took place. The accused forcibly dispossessed after assaulting the complainant and her mother-in-law. 8. Learned counsel for the non petitioners on the other hand, submitted that the Learned Session Judge in the impugned order has clearly accepted the contention of the non petitioners, that at the relevant time the accused were in possession of the above land and that they were dispossessed only when the Receiver took possession of the aforesaid land when an attachment order under Section 1461 Cr.RC. was passed. He also submitted that there is a bonafide dispute between the parties with regard to the above land. When the learned Sessions Judge took a particular view on the evidence and passed an order of discharge, this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction, must not interfere. He again emphasised that the powers should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. 9. I have seen the impugned order. The learned Judge has referred to the rival contentions with regard to the above land and particularly its possession. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge was inclined to believe the version of the accused non petitioners that till possession of the above field was taken over by the receiver in pursuance of order of attachment, the accused were in possession of the above land. Hence on the alleged date of offence, the non petitioners were in possession. 10. Since the learned Sessions Judge in his impugned order was inclined to agree with the contention of the non petitioners that on the day of offence they were in possession on the basis of record available, I find no scope to interfere in this revision petition keeping in view the restricted exercise on the revisional side as held in the Supreme Court case. 11. For the above reasons, there is no force in the revision petition and it is hereby dismissed.> Petition dismissed. *******