An affidavit sworn before the Magistrate satisfies the requirement of a complaint on oath under Section 552, Criminal Procedure Code, and the proceedings before the District Magistrate under this section are in the nature of habeas corpus proceedings.

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 Smt. 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 District Magistrate for securing her release. Vagta expired some four years 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. According 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 those 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 District Magistrate then issued the order under revision, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, calling upon Vala to produce Smt. Homli before him.

3. In challenging the order of the learned District Magistrate it is contended by learned counsel for Vala that, in the first place, there was no complaint on oath before the learned Magistrate as required by Section 552, Criminal Procedure Code. It is maintained that the complaint on oath means a complaint which is supported by a statement of the complainant on oath. According to learned counsel, taking of an affidavit does not satisfy the requirement of a complaint on oath, as the conditions under which an affidavit in lieu of evidence can be taken have been specified in certain sections of the Criminal Procedure Code, such as, Sections 510A and 145, Criminal Procedure Code. In the second place, it was submitted that on the death of Vagta, Smt. Homli had performed 'Nata' according to the custom of the community with the younger brother of her husband one Mathura and since then she had been living peaceably with her new husband Mathura. It was submitted that her father Pura wanted to make money by giving her in 'Nata' to another person.It was averred that Smt. Homli had appeared in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate Chhoti Sadri to make a statement in connection with a case lodged by her and that went to show that she was a free agent and it was wrong to say that she had been under unlawful detention.

4. Now, I may read Section 552, Criminal Procedure Code :

"S. 552. Power to compel restoration of abducted females. Upon complaint made to a Presidency 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 compliance with such order, using such force as may be necessary."
The use of the expression "Upon complaint made to a Presidency Magistrate or District 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 which is on oath and filed before him in support of the complaint. The term "complaint" here is a generic expression and cannot be equated with a complaint made under Section 190 Criminal Procedure Code or as one defined under Section 4 (1) (h) of the Code, when i