JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. On 13.1.1993 at 5.30 p.m. Smt. Dropadi Devi lodged a FIR with P/s. Shivaji Park, Alwar, informing the Police Officers that on that day at about 12.30 p.m. when she had gone to look after her field, she noticed the dead body of a male lying in her field. On this report crime No. 7/93 under section 302 IPC was registered and the non-petitioner No. 2 Ishaw and Shanker, accused, were arrested on 17.1.1993. After completing the investigation the police charge-sheeted the non-petitioner and Shankar and the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After hearing the parties the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302 IPC against Shankar but discharged the present non-petitioner of the same. Hence this petition under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. by Dalchand, the father of the deceased, who was identified as Jitendra. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there existed the following circumstances against the respondent Ishaw to frame charge u /s. 302 IPC against him:- (a) that on 10.1.1993 Lala Ram and Dalchand had seen the deceased going to Alwar in the company of Shankar and Ishaw, respondent. The evidence of last seen was on the face of it also to connect the respondent No. 2 with the crime, committed in the case. (b) that the respondent's blood stained hair and head-wear (Towel) were seized from his possession. Both these items do not connect the respondent with the death of Jitendra, deceased, as admittedly both the items belonged to the respondent and the blood found present in the hair and on the towel could also belong to him. (c) that a shoe, belonging to Jitendra, deceased, was found on the place of occurrence. It was submitted that this shoe was seen there on the information, given by the respondent No. 2. The respondent was arrested on 17.1.1993 at 6.30 p.m. and the alleged information is stated to have been given on 19.1.1993, whereas Jitendra dead body had been recovered on 14.1.1993 and at that time no shoe was seen lying thereat. There is no evidence that the shoe belonged to the deceased or somebody else. This circumstance too does not connect the petitioner with the crime in the case. (d)that a `sabbal' was recovered on the information and at the instance of the non-petitioner. There is no evidence that the shoe belonged to the deceased or somebody else. This circumstance too does not connect the petitioner with the crime in the case. (d)that a `sabbal' was recovered on the information and at the instance of the non-petitioner. There is no seizure memo of the alleged 'sabbal' on which human blood is stated to have been detected by the Serologist. It was pointed out that in the site map, prepared on 18.1.1993, the seizure of the 'sabbal' was mentioned. It has not been mentioned in the particulars of the site map that the 'sabbal', allegedly recovered at that place, was ever seized and sealed by the police. Thus there is no evidence to connect the 'sabbal' with the death of Jitendra. 4. In view of the above discussion, there are no good reasons to permit a private party to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court either under section 397/401 or under section 482 Cr.P.C. when the case has been registered on a police report. 5. The petition is, therefore, fails and accordingly dismissed.Revision rejected. *******