Short Note : Child Gopalsingh, then aged about 8 years, is the natural son of party No.1 Umraosingh. On 24-2-74, party No.2 Prahladsingh moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tarana, for a search warrant regarding the said child on the allegations that party No.1 had forcibly abducted the child Gopalsingh from his lawful custody with a view to wrongfully confine and cause injuries to him. 2. On 5-3-74, both the parties along with the child Gopalsingh appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who were examined by him and, thereafter, he passed an order to the effect that the custody of the child be handed over to party No.2 Prahladsingh. 3. Against this order, party No.1 Umraosingh preferred a revision before the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, who has made this reference. Held : Admittedly, party No.1 Umraosingh is the natural father of the child Gopalsingh, who was then a minor aged about 8 years and, therefore, party No. 1 was the natural guardian of this minor child Gopalsingh and was legally entitled to the custody of the boy as his guardian. 4. There is no material on record to indicate how party No.2 Prahladsingh claimed himself to be the lawful custodian of Gopalsingh. 5. Before passing an order for the issuance of a warrant under section 100, Cr.P.C., the section contemplates that the Magistrate must have reason to believe that any person is confined by another person under such circumstances which amounts to an offence. It appears that in the present case, as soon as party No.2 Prahladsingh filed an application for a search warrant supported by an affidavit, the learned Magistrate issued the warrant without getting himself satisfied individually before issuing the order. Admittedly, at the relevant time, the boy Gopalsingh was a minor and under section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, party No.1 Umraosingh, as his father, was entitled to the custody of his minor son in the capacity of a natural guardian. 6. It was, therefore, necessary for the learned Magistrate, before passing the impugned order, to get himself satisfied that the person was wrongfully confined. In the present case, the boy Gopalsingh stated that party No. 2 Prahladsingh beats him and expressed his desire to live with his father Umraosingh, party No. 1. That being so, it cannot be said that the child was wrongfully confined by party No.1. In the present case, the boy Gopalsingh stated that party No. 2 Prahladsingh beats him and expressed his desire to live with his father Umraosingh, party No. 1. That being so, it cannot be said that the child was wrongfully confined by party No.1. In such a situation the learned Magistrate could not order the custody of the child Gopalsingh to be handed over to parry No.2 Prahladsingh. In absence of any evidence or material indicating that party No.2 could claim any preference over party No. 1 in the matter of custody of the child, the learned Magistrate was not justified in law in straightway passing the impugned order without any inquiry. As the natural guardian viz., party No.1 Umraosingh had the lawful custody of his minor son, there was no confinement much less any wrongful confinement amounting to an offence and, therefore, section 100 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, could not be invoked. Lila Bai v. Chandanlal, 1957 JLJ 778 : AIR 1958 M.P. 24 and State v. Parvatibai, 1962 MPLJ Note 207 relied on. Reference accepted.