PIYUSH CHAMARIA Vs. HEMANTA JITANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,Tinsukia, in Complaint Case No. 175c/2008, whereby the minor daughter of the petitioner has been given to the custody of her maternal grandfather (Opposite Party No.3), has been challenged in this Criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) Heard Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr.R. K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

(3.) The petitioner, hereinbefore, is the complainant of Complaint Case No. 175c/2008 and his case, in brief, is that he entered into wedlock with Madhu Chamaria, who died leaving behind the complainant as her husband and minor daughter aged about 21/2 years. Following the death of his wife, the relative of the deceased lodged a case against the complainant and his parents whereby the complainant and his parents were arrested by the police and they were released from custody after two months. It is the case of the complainant that while he was under the judicial custody, he gave custody and care of her minor daughter to his uncle Suresh Jajodia and aunt Smti. Shobha Jajodia. On 01.12.2007, the accused Hemanta, Jitani and Dipak Goel, both relatives of the deceased Madhu Chamaria came to the house of Bimal Chamaria, where Shobha Jajodia along with minor Shravya Chamaria lived and forcibly took away Shravya Chamaria despite the protest raised by Shobha Jajodia. Suresh Jajodia lodged an First Information Report (FIR) but the police did not register any case. On being released frorn the custody, on bail, on 03.02.2008, when the complainant made inquiry from Hemanta and Dipak (accused persons) about his daughter, they refused to give any information. The abovementioned accused persons, in the meantime, handed -over the child, in question, to her maternal grandfather (accused No.3). Having learnt about the whereabouts of the child, the complainant telephoned the grandfather of the child and though the grandfather admitted that the child was with him, he refused to hand -over the child to the complainant(husband of the deceased). The complainant also received the information that surname of the child has been changed by accused No.3 from 'Chamaria' to 'Bajaj'.