ORDER Amar Dutt, J. - Petitioner, Shakuntla, has lodged formal F.I.R. No. 8 of 1992 in Police Station Farrukh Nagar on the basis of which a charge sheet was filed against Brahma Nand Parma Nand, Nite Nand and Sarda Nand under Sections 323/325/34 Indian Penal Code and they were tried under the aforesaid sections. The Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gurgaon had on 21.7.1998 acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them and this has occasioned the filing of the present revision petition. 2. At the time of arguments, on behalf of respondents, an objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the present revision petition on the ground that private party has no right to file the same in case which was instituted upon the police report in view of the law laid down in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1788 wherein it was held as under :- "It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice." 3. This view was reiterated in Kishan Swaroop v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 990 wherein the Apex Court has held as under : "From the impugned judgment we find that the High Court has referred to the provisions of Sections 378 and 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to conclude that it was the primary responsibility of the State to file appeal/revision and therefore no criminal revision in respect of an order which is appealable at the instance of State could/should be entertained without the requisite permission of the Public Prosecutor. In drawing the above inference the High Court failed to notice that if the Code of Criminal Procedure did not empower a private party to file a revision petition against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted on a police report a formal permission of the Public Prosecutor would not entitle him to do so. In drawing the above inference the High Court failed to notice that if the Code of Criminal Procedure did not empower a private party to file a revision petition against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted on a police report a formal permission of the Public Prosecutor would not entitle him to do so. To put it differently, a Public Prosecutor cannot vest a private party with a right which it has not got under the Code." 4. Thus in view of the above proposition of law and the fact that on going through the judgment dated 21.7.1998 nothing has been brought to my notice which would constitute a glaring defect of procedure or manifest error on the point of law, I feel that the objection taken by the respondents has got to be upheld. In this view of the matter, the revision petition has to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Order accordingly. Revision dismissed.