JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18.9.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh, in Sessions Case No. 25/2001 (39/99). 2. Brief facts, which are necessary for decision of this petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. are that an FIR was lodged by petitioner-Hanuman Singh for offence u/s. 302 IPC with Police Station, Ratangarh on 16.6.1999. Police investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet against respondent No. 2-Bajrang Singh for offence u/s. 302 IPC and for offence u/s. 498-A IPC against respondent No. 3-Supyar Kanwar. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh. The respondents were arrested on 15.7.1999. Charges were framed on 10.1.2000 and thereafter prosecution witnesses were examined. The complainant PW-1 Hanuman Singh was examined by the trial Court on 18.5.2000. The prosecution examined all the prosecution witnesses and the last prosecution witness was examined on 25.7.2001. The case was posted for recording of the statement of the accused-respondents u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. The statements of the accused-respondents were recorded on 29.7.2001 and the matter was posted for final arguments on 20.8.2001. On 20.8.2001 an application was moved u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the prosecution witnesses, which was decided on 21.8.2001. The case was posted for final arguments on 28.8.2001. On 28.8.2001 two applications were filed by the prosecution; one was u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the witnesses and the another for amendment of the charge u/s. 216 Cr.P.C. The trial Court vide order impugned dated 18.9.2001 dismissed both the applications filed by the prosecution. The State of Rajasthan, who has domain of the prosecution, has not challenged that order. However, the petitioner-complainant filed an application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the trial Court whereby the trial Court refused to amend the charge. The case as set up by the complainant is that death of Smt. Resham Kanwar occurred within seven years of marriage and, therefore, the offence of Section 302 IPC is sought to be amended to Section 304-B IPC: The trial Court by a detailed order, rejected the request made by the prosecution on the ground that the petitioner-Hanuman Singh the complainant himself lodged the FIR in which he clearly mentioned that Smt. Resham Kanwar was murdered by strangulation by her husband respondent No. 2-Bajrang Singh. The complainant has not alleged anything in the FIR that before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. No such evidence was recorded by the police during the investigation. Statements of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. by the police and in those statements also, no such averment was made. However, to was for the first time when the complainant was examined before the trial Court on 18.5.2000, he has made such statement. The trial Court reached to the conclusion that even after making statements before the trial Court on 18.5.2000, the prosecution or the complainant did not move any application for amendment of the charge but when the matter was posted for final arguments on 20.8.2001, the prosecution moved the application for recalling one of the prosecution witnesses, which was rejected by the trial Court and thereafter the prosecution again moved two applications on 28.8.2001; one u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness and another u/s. 216 Cr.P.C. for ai amendment of the charge. The trial Court did not consider it proper to amend the charge in the light of the material on record. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge can be amended at any time before the judgment is pronounced. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. Pratap Singh & Ors., (2000) 9 SCC 352 . In that case death was due to electrocution within seven years of marriage and six persons including husband of the deceased were charged u/ss. 304-B & 201 IPC. The case was registered for the aforesaid offences and after investigation, police laid challan against the persons named for various offences noticed above. The High Court came to the conclusion on taking all the evidence adduced that the deceased during her lifetime was subjected to harassment on account of insufficient dowry and Jemands were further made before her death occurred. Despite this being the finding, the High Court acquitted the accused. On appeal by the informant, the Hon'ble 'Supreme Court set aside the acquittal and convicted for the aforesaid offences. Despite this being the finding, the High Court acquitted the accused. On appeal by the informant, the Hon'ble 'Supreme Court set aside the acquittal and convicted for the aforesaid offences. The case in hand is not of that nature. In the instant case, the case as set up by the complainant-petitioner was u/s. 302 IPC and in the first information report, there was no allegation regarding the deceased being subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of insufficiency of dowry or the demand of dowry. It is for the first time that when the complainant was examined before the trial Court, the theory of demand of dowry was introduced. Not only this, even after the statements of the complainant PW-1 which was recorded on 18.5.2000, no such application for amending the charge was made. Thus, when the complainant was unsuccessful on the application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C., thereafter the seeking amendment of the charge was filed. The order refusing to amend the charge is revisable u/s. 397(1) Cr.P.C. No such revision was filed. However, the petitioner choose to invoke the inherent powers of this Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. 5. In State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agarwal, 1996 SCC (Cr.) 628 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the inherent power of the Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. should be very sparingly and cautiously used only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of process of Court, if such power is not exercised. 6. In Mahavir Prasad Gupta (Shri) & Anr. v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors., 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 765 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that undoubtedly, there could be interference in rarest of rare cases. However, one such would be when the complaint itself does not disclose any offence. 7. In Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., JT 2001(8) SC 325 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the use of extraordinary powers conferred upon the High Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. are, however, required to be reserved, as far as possible, for extraordinary cases. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents submitted that the evidence as noticed above, clearly go to show that it is the complainant, who somehow wants to linger on the matter because respondent No. 2 is in custody since his arrest on 15.7.1999. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents submitted that the evidence as noticed above, clearly go to show that it is the complainant, who somehow wants to linger on the matter because respondent No. 2 is in custody since his arrest on 15.7.1999. He further submitted that the Public Prosecutor (P.P.) is the sole in-charge of the sessions case and the complainant can only submit arguments at the close of the case and cannot participate in the proceedings as prosecutor. He has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thakur Ram & Ors. v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 911 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "In a case which has proceeded on a police report a private party has really no locus standi. No doubt, the terms of Section 435 under which the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge was invoked are very wide and he could even have taken up the matter suo motu. It would, however, not be irrelevant to bear in mind the fact that the Court's jurisdiction was invoked by a private party. The criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exception, 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." 9. In Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand & Anr., 1999 Cr.L.R. (SC) 689 , the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 225 Cr.P.C. and held as u/s. 225 Cr.P.C. reads as under : "225. Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor.-In every trial before a Court of Session, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor." The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "From the scheme of the Code the legislative intention is manifestly clear that prosecution in a Sessions Court cannot be conducted by any one other than the Public Prosecutor. Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor.-In every trial before a Court of Session, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor." The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "From the scheme of the Code the legislative intention is manifestly clear that prosecution in a Sessions Court cannot be conducted by any one other than the Public Prosecutor. The legislature reminds the State that the policy must strictly conform to fairness in the trial of an accused in a Sessions Court. A Public Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of the accused somehow or the other irrespective of the true facts involved in the case. The expected attitude of the Public Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to the Court and to the investigating agencies but to the accused as well. If an accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit during trial the Public Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it. On the contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to which it to the fore and make it available to the accused. Even if the defence counsel overlooked it, Public Prosecutor has the added responsibility to bring it to the notice of the Court if it comes to his knowledge. A private counsel, if allowed free hand to conduct prosecution would focus on bringing the case to conviction even if it is not a fit case to be so convicted. That is the reason why Parliament applied a bridle on him and subjected his role strictly to the instructions given by the Public Prosecutor." 10. In para No. 13 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the only other liberty which the counsel engaged by a private party can possibly exercise is to submit written arguments after the closure of evidence in the trial, but that too can be done only if the Court permits him to do so. 11. In Harihar Chakravarty v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 266 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant. 12. 11. In Harihar Chakravarty v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 266 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that after the closure of the case on 31.7.2001, the petitioner-complainant somehow designed to keep respondent No. 2 in custody for an indefinite period and this petition is outcome of such design of the petitioner. 13. Keeping in view the above proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the instant case is examined. The learned Public Prosecutor, who is in-charge of the sessions case or the State, did not choose to challenge the order impugned as such, it cannot be said that the State through its prosecution agency is aggrieved by the said order. More so, the petitioner-complainant is a person interested in the outcome of the case lodged by him, which is evident from the fact that he has not mentioned anything with regard to cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry or insufficiency of dowry. Not only this, the application for amendment of charge was also moved after having been unsuccessful in the earlier applications much after the statement of the complainant was recorded by the trial Court. Thus, it cannot be said that the case of the accused-respondents would not be prejudicial in case the trial is to begin afresh. 14. Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no case for interference u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. The order impugned cannot be said to result in manifest injustice to a party or would result in abuse of process of any Court. 15. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******