JUDGMENT : 1. - This Criminal Revision filed by Pankaj Sharma is directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, dated 3.2.1999 whereby the learned Lower Court discharged the accused non-petitioner from the offence under Section 307 IPC and sent them to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, for trial under Section 228 Cr.PC. 2. In this revision, notices were issued to non-petitioners. Record was called for and the case was listed for final disposal. 3. First of all, the matter was heard on the preliminary objection raised by the Mr. R.S. Rathore, counsel for the non-petitioners that whether in a case instituted on a police report, private complainant can file revision against the order of discharge. 4. Mr. Rathore argues that sire the challan was filed by police and the case was instituted on police report, therefore, the complainant has no locus standi to file this criminal revision against the impugned order. In support of his arguments. Mr. Rathore placed reliance on Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 911 , Sawant Raj v. State of Rajasthan and another, 1979 Cr.L.R. (Raj. Supply) , B. Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1996 (1) Raj. 686 , Jagbir & another v. State of Punjab, (1998) 6 S.C.C. 629 and Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner submits that private complainant in such matter can file criminal revision and High Court can hear such criminal revision filed by the private complainant. In support of his arguments. Mr. Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Kaptan Singh and others v. State of M.P. and another, (1997) 6 SCC, 185 ; Lala Ram v. Idrish and others, 1998 WLC (Raj.) U.C. 670 , K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 1962 SC 1788 , Gurshinder Singh v. Joga Singh and another, 1999 SCC (Cr.) 1311 , and Ganga Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (2) RCC 559 . 6. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgments cited by them. 7. In Thakur Ram's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme court held that 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 vide and he can even take up the matter suo motu. 7. In Thakur Ram's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme court held that 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 vide and he can even take up the matter suo motu. The Criminal law is not, however, to be used as an instrument of wreaking private vengence 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 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. 8. After reading this judgment, I come to this conclusion that ordinarily in a case instituted on police report, a private party has no locus standi to file a criminal revision. But in this judgment, Hon. Supreme court has also held that 'No doubt, the terms of S. 435 are very wide and he can even take up the matter suo motu.' In this judgment, old Section 435 is referred which is equivalent to new Section 397, which is relating to Criminal Revision.Section 401 Cr.PC. reads as under : 401. High Court's powers to revision.-(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of session by section 307. 9. In this way, it is clear that High Court can entertain a revision suo motu if, sufficient facts are brought to its notice. In this connection the words as 'which otherwise comes to its knowledge' are also important. 10. In Bhupendra Kumar's case (supra), this Court has held that in criminal cases prosecution is launched by State and State is a party before the learned Magistrate, therefore, complainant can not be allowed to interact with court by filing revision petition. 11. I have gone through this authority. The facts of this case are different. 10. In Bhupendra Kumar's case (supra), this Court has held that in criminal cases prosecution is launched by State and State is a party before the learned Magistrate, therefore, complainant can not be allowed to interact with court by filing revision petition. 11. I have gone through this authority. The facts of this case are different. In that case learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, set aside the order of learned C.J.M. dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused petitioner for one day under Section 205 Cr.P.C. In that case, the petitioner filed revision petition but later on he requested that Criminal Revision be treated as Petition under Section 482, therefore, it was a matter of petition under Section 482 and problem in that case was also different. In my view that case is not applicable in the present matter. 12. In Sawant Raj's case (supra), this Court has held that in a case filed on police report, private complainant has no locus standi to file the revision. 13. In Ship Kumar's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that in the cases instituted on police report, the private counsel has to act on behalf of Public Prosecutor. If the role of the Public Prosecutor is allowed to shrink to a mere supervisory role the trial would become a combat between the private party and the accused which would render the legislative mandate in Section 225 of the Code a dead letter. 14. This authority is also not directly on the point on issue before me. 15. In Jagbir Singh's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as is under : "Admittedly, the cognizance in the instant case was taken upon a police report under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.PC. Resultantly, it was the State alone who could file an appeal in the High Court against the order of acquittal under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. after obtaining leave under sub-section (3) thereof and not the complainant who could only file, an application under Section 401 Cr.PC. for revision of that order. The High Court, therefore, was not at all justified in entertaining the appeal of the complainant and disposing the same in the manner aforesaid. On this score alone, we allow this appeal and restore the order of the trial court. for revision of that order. The High Court, therefore, was not at all justified in entertaining the appeal of the complainant and disposing the same in the manner aforesaid. On this score alone, we allow this appeal and restore the order of the trial court. The High Court will not treat the memorandum of appeal filed by the complainant as an application for revision of the order of Sessions Judge, qua the two appellants only, and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The appellants who are in jail be released forthwith unless wanted 30 in connection with any other case." 16. When we read this judgment, it says that a private complainant can lot file an appeal against the order of acquittal in the cases instituted on police report but that complainant can file an application under Section 401 for revision against that order. Hon. Supreme Court in that case held that High Court would now treat the memorandum of appeal filed by the complainant as an application for revision of the order of the Sessions Judge. It means, Hon. Supreme Court has held that in a case instituted on police report against the judgment of acquittal, a complainant can not file an appeal but criminal revision can be filed and entertained by High Court. 17. In the case before me, private complainant has not filed appeal but he has filed criminal revision. In my opinion, this authority would not help Mr. Rathore. 18. On the other hand Mr. Sahni placed reliance on K. Chinnaswamy's case (supra), wherein Hon. Supreme Court has held that High Court is competent 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. 19. I have gone through this authority. After going through it, it is clear that High Court is competent to hear a criminal revision filed by private complainant though it should be done in exceptional circumstances. 20. In Gurshinder Singh's case (supra), relied upon by Mr. 19. I have gone through this authority. After going through it, it is clear that High Court is competent to hear a criminal revision filed by private complainant though it should be done in exceptional circumstances. 20. In Gurshinder Singh's case (supra), relied upon by Mr. Sahni, criminal revision was filed by a private parry against an order of acquittal,which was dismissed by High Court, then the complainant went before the Hon. Supreme Court and Hon. Supreme Court has remanded the revision back to High Court and directed that this is not a case where revision should have been dismissed summarily and directed the High Court to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties. In that case also State did not choose to file an appeal. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on Lala Ram's case (supra), wherein this Court held that in such a case where Criminal revision is filed by a private complainant, High Court can hear such revision. In this matter, Hon. Mr. Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma has discussed many authorities. In this case also accused persons were discharged from the offence under Section 307 IPC and the case was sent back to learned, C.J.M. under Section 228 Cr.PC. In that case also private complainant injured Lal Ram filed a criminal revision against the order of discharge and in that case also such preliminary objection was raised that a private complainant has no locus stand' to file such criminal revision and such preliminary objection was negatived by Hon. Mr. Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma. 22. From Kaptan Singh's case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that High Court can exercise revisional power in the matter filed by private complainant. 23. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the rulings cited by them, I am of the view that in the cases instituted by police, ordinarily State is entitled to file criminal revision but when we read Section 401 Cr.P.C. it becomes clear that High Court can entertain revision suo motu if sufficient facts are brought to its notice. The words used in Section 401 'which otherwise comes to its knowledge' are also important. The words used in Section 401 'which otherwise comes to its knowledge' are also important. By reading these words, it is clear that a private person can also draw the attention of the High Court towards the finding of subordinate court by filing a criminal revision. 24. In the present case, this criminal revision is filed by Pankaj. This Court has called for the record. Record of the lower court is before me. In my view, under such circumstances, when in a case instituted on police report, private complainant has filed criminal revision and record has been called for and record is before High Court, the High Court should not dismiss such revision only on the point that it is filed by private complainant but under these circumstances, High Court should hear both the parties on merits and peruse the record of lower court and examine whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the order of the court below. In my opinion, this criminal revision can not be dismissed solely on the ground that this is filed by private complainant. 25. The revision be listed for admission.Revision listed for hearing. *******