NOWRANGRAI AGARWALLA Vs. RAMBHAGAT THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against an order dt. 22 -3 -83 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar in G.R. Case No. 1025 of 1982 directing the petitioner to produce his daughter, Kumari Nenia Agarwalla. Admittedly, the petitioner is the father of the girl. The girl was found missing and the petitioner filed a case of kidnapping against the opposite party and claimed that she was aged about 15 to 16 years. The police registered a case and during the investigation the opposite party was arrested along with the girl. However, during the proceedings the girl was handed over to her natural guardian, namely, the petitioner. Police after investigation, submitted final report which was accepted by the Magistrate and he discharged the accused person on 29 -12 -82. After about 3 months, that is, on 16 -3 -83, the opposite party filed an application in G. R. Case No. 1025/82 arising out of Demow P. S.Case No. 78/82 stating that there was no material against him, the girl was major and he had legally married the girl and accordingly prayed to the learned Magistrate for production of the girl and allow her to go with the opposite party. On receipt of the said application, the learned Magistrate passed the following order : "22 -3 -83 - Seen the petition of Ram Bhagat Thakur. It appears that the case has already been ended with final report obviously on the ground that the victim girl was minor. Hence issue notice upon the custodian of the victim girl to produce her in court. So that on appearance the victim girl can exercise her liberty to go anywhere she likes. Fixing 30 -4 -83."

(2.) IT is not disputed at the bar that the petitioner is the father of the girl. It is also not disputed that the girl is living under the care and custody of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that G. R. Case No. 1025/82 terminated on 29 -12 -82, when accepting the final report the learned Magistrate discharged the accused person. As such, there is no criminal case pending. The opposite party has failed to show how could the learned Magistrate exercise jurisdiction to give a direction to the petitioner to produce his daughter in court. It is conceded that the provisions of Section 93, Criminal P. C. are not applicable in the instant case.

(3.) UNDER these circumstances, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the learned Magistrate has had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and, accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. However, if the opposite party has really married the girl and she is major, as claimed by the opposite party, he may obtain appropriate relief from a competent civil court by taking appropriate action for restoration of the custody of the girl.