V.N.MISRA,J. - (1.) THIS is an applica­tion in revision by Bhagwan Singh, Smt. Gaini Devi, Smt. Yashoda Devi and Smt. Jawa Devi against the judgment and order dated February 12, 1982 of T.P. Mittal. Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 1981, by means of which he set aside the order of the learned Magitsrate discharging the applicants.
(2.) T heard this revision on August 2, 1982 and decided it. Since, however, the learned counsel for the applicant could not come to argue this revision, he made an ap­plication that the order passed against him be recalled. I heard him and recalled the or­der and the revision has again been placed before me for hearing. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was that this revision against an order of Sessions Judge by a private person was not maintainable and he also cited Thakur Ram and others v. State of Bihar A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 911, in support of his contention. In that case it was held that in a case, which proceeds on police report, pri­vate party has no locus standi. Criminal law should not 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 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 for the State to take all the steps necessary for banging the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book. There can be no denial that in cases initiated on a police report it is the State, who is the aggrieved party and a complainant has no locus standi to come to Court. But an order like the one under consideration in this revision was clearly perverse and rightly set aside by the learned Sessions Judge.
(3.) A perusal of the trial court's judg­ment shows that merely because of two dis­crepancies the learned Magistrate discharged the applicants under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and found the charge against them to be groundless. These disc­repancies were that in the first information report it was stated that when Diwan Singh reached the place of Marpit, his father Bhopal Singh had become unconscious, but this was not stated in his statement under Sec­tion 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.;