I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By order, dated 09-04-2008, passed in the Complaint Case No. 175C/2008, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, while directing issuance of summons against the three opposite parties herein, who were arraigned, in the complaint, as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, further directed a search warrant to be issued, in terms of the provisions of Section 97 Cr.P.C., for recovery of the complainant petitioner's daughter, Shravya Chamaria, from the custody of the accused-opposite party No. 3, namely, Sri Deokinandan Bajaj, and directed the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station concerned to execute the search warrant. However, as the search warrant was not executed on the ground that the child, in question, was within the territorial jurisdiction of the district of Nagaon, the learned Magistrate passed another order, on 18-04-2008, directing the search warrant to be issued to the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, for execution. Aggrieved by the two orders aforementioned, namely, the order, dated 09-04-2008, and the order, dated 18-04-2008, the accused-opposite party herein filed a revision petition challenging therein not only the said two orders, dated 09-04-2008 and 18-04-2008, but also the very act of taking of the cognizance of the offences, as a whole, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinusukia. This revision gave rise to Criminal Revision No. 10(2)/2008.

2. By judgment and order, dated 01-08-2008; as the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, has set aside the order, dated 09-04-2008, to the extent that the same directed issuance of search warrant under Section 97 Cr.P.C, the present petitioner, who is, admittedly, the father of the child, in question, has come to this Court with the help of the present application, made under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to get set aside the judgment and order, dated 01-08-2008, aforementioned.

3. I have heard Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel, for the complainant-petitioner, and Mr. K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-opposite party.

4. Before I enter into the merit of the application, made under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is appropriate to refer to certain relevant and material aspects of law. To begin with, Section 361 IPC, which deals with kidnapping from lawful guardianship, needs to be taken note of. The relevant provisions of Section 361 IPC, reads, "Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age, if a male, or under eighteen years of age, if a female, ********, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor, ********, without the 'consent' of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor ***** from lawful guardianship."

5. In substance, what Section 361 IPC conveys is that when a person takes any minor child out of the keeping of the 'lawful guardian' of such a minor without the 'consent' of the guardian, then, he is said to have committed kidnapping of such minor from the lawful guardianship. The explanation, appended to Section 361 IPC, is of greater relevance, in the present case, inasmuch as the Explanation makes it clear that 'lawful guardian' will include not only natural guardian or a lawfully appointed guardian, but also a person, who is lawfully entrusted with the care and custody of such a minor, meaning thereby that when a natural guardian hands over the care and custody of his/her minor child to another person, then, even the person, who is so entrusted with the care and; custody of the minor, would become the lawful guardian of the minor and if someone take such a minor without the 'consent' of such a guardian, his act of taking away of the minor from the care and custody of such a guardian shall amount to kidnapping of the minor from 'lawful guardianship'.

6. So far as Section 97 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it reads, "If any District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class has reason to believe that any person is confined under such circumstances that th