( 1 ) THE brief facts of this case are that non-applicant Sagarlal Behera filed a complaint under section 98, Cr. P. C. that according banani custom prevalent in his Sahu community, he married Ku. Krishna Bijli Sahu, aged about 22 years, the daughter of Laxmidhar Sahu on 20/5/1985 at Raipur and thereafter both lived together at Raipur. She was allowed to return to her village Laida In district Sambalpur (Orissa) to prosecute her studies and even thereafter she had been visiting him at Raipur. Krishna allegedly became pregnant through him but aborted on 16/2/1986. Dr. (Mrs.) K. Tiwari treated her at Raipur. The applicant further stated that the was with him in September and October, 1986. During this period, the applicant, in token of fidelity and marital bliss, purchased properties and opened bank accounts in her name. Thereafter Krishna went to her father at village Laida. Her father Laxmidhar Sahu and uncle Madan Mohan Sahu did not permit her to return back to him. The applicant was also not allowed to meet her. He received information that Krishnas marriage has been settled with one Shesh Deo Kaiwart and the marriage was to be performed on 18/1/1987. Therefore the non-applicant contends that, Krishnas detention by her father and uncle is unlawful for the unlawful purpose of her second marriage. He, therefore, prayed for restoration of Krishna to him. In support of the complaint, the non-applicant filed his own affidavit and photostat copies of four other affidavits of Makhanu Behera his elder brother, Smt. Kiyaful his first wife, Ayodhya Prasad Pandey and Dusthi Dandsena.

( 2 ) ON 14/1/1987, the application, though addressed to S. D. M. was presented before Additional District Magistrate, Raipur, who endorsed on its margin Issue search warrant to N/a. T The order sheet was however written on 15/1/1987, mentioning the filing of the application with affidavits, which was ordered to be registered as application under section 98, Cr. P. C. There is also a direction to issue search warrant against the non-applicants viz. Laxmidhar Sahu and Madan Mohan Sahu.

( 3 ) THE case was next taken up on 23/1/1987, N. A. Laxmidhar and Krishna filed their separate replies denying the alleged marriage and his locus standi to move the application. The search warrant returned unexecuted.

( 4 ) ON 8/4/1987, Krishna sent an application by post to the High Court invoking the suo motu revisional powers under section 401, Cr. P. C. against the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate. By order dated 17/4/1987 of the Chief Justice, the application has registered as criminal revision. On 1/5/1987, I admitted the revision and directed issue of notice to Sagarlal Behera, stayed further proceedings before the trial Court and sent for the original record.

( 5 ) THE non-applicant appeared with his counsel and filed objections by way of reply on 29/6/1987. On 4/7/1987, I appointed Shri Fakhruddin to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of Krishna. Since Shri Fakhruddin was not available, Shri N. K. Shukla, Advocate appeared as amicus curiae for the applicant. Arguments were heard on 24-8-1987.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicant raised an objection that the revision has not been filed along with certified copy of the impugned order and therefore it is liable to be rejected. He further submitted that the signature on the revision petition is not the signature of Krishna and instead her signature has been forged by someone. According to him, Krishna ist illegally detained by her father, with intent to perform her second marriage with another person. Therefore he is entitled to restoration of her custody.

( 7 ) THE aforesaid objections were orally turned down and the non-applicant was told that the letter has already been treated as a revision. Even other-wise this Court in exercise of suo motu powers intends to examine the legality, propriety and the correctness of the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate an