VALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two matters one is a revision application by one Vala against an order of the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh, calling upon Vala Under Section 552, Criminal Procedure Code to produce his daughter -in -law one Suit. Homli; the other is an application Under Section 561 -A, Criminal Procedure Code by Smt. Homli herself praying that the proceedings before the learned District Magistrate be quashed.

(2.) VALA had two sons Vagta and Mathura. Smt. Homli was married with Vagta some 10 years before the filing of the application by the father of the girl with the Distriot Magistrate for securing her release. Vagta expired Borne four ye are back. One Babru made an application on 1.7 -70 before the learned Magistrate that after Smt. Homli had become a widow she had been given in 'Nata' to him. Aooording to him, on 14 -6 -70 after her 'Nata' with the petitioner Babru she was proceeding to the village of the petitioner. On the way the petitioner was surprised by some 12 persons who attacked them. Smt. Homli was carried away by these persons and lodged in the house of non -petitioner Vala and was there kept under unlawful detention. This application was supported by an affidavit which was verified by the learned District Magistrate himself. The learned Distriot Magistrate then issued the order under revision, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, calling upon Vala to produoe Smt. Horcli before him.

(3.) NOW , I may read Section 552, Criminal Procedure Code: Section 552. Power to compel restoration of abducted females. Upon oomplaint made to a P/eaidenoy Magistrate or District Magistrate on oath of the abduction or unlawful detention of a woman, or of a female child under the age of 'eighteen' years, for any unlawful purpose, he may make an order for the immediate restoration of such woman to her liberty, or of such female child to her husband, parent, guardian or other person having the lawful charge of such child, and may compel com. pliance with suoh order, using such force as may be necessary. The use of the expression 'Upon oomplaint made to a Presidency Magistrate or Distriot Magistrate on oath' does not lead to the narrow meaning that it is only when there is a statement on oath before the Magistrate himself that it will constitute a complaint on oath. To my mind, the expression used will embrace both a statement on oath made before the Magistrate as well as an affidavit whioh is on oath and filed before him in suppot of the complaint. The term 'complaint' here is a generic expression and cannot be equated with a complaint made Under Section 190 Criminal Procedure Oode or as one defined Under Section 4 (1) (h) of the Code, when it connotes certain allegations made before a Magistrate that some persons have committed an offence though it does not include the report of a police officer. Here the word 'complaint' means the ventilation of a grievance about a certain matter speoified in the section. Therefore, the filing of an affidavit in support of the complaint will undoubtedly meet the require, menta of 8. 552, Criminal P.C.