JUDGEMENT 1. This revision has questioned the correctness and legality of order passed by the learned Magistrate under S.97 of the Criminal Procedure Code and its executability. The applicant No. 1 Pravinsingh has married with applicant No. 2 Rekha on 22-2-1985. The respondent No. 1 Biharilalsingh is father of applicant No. 2 Rekha. 2. Non-applicant Biharilalsingh on 19-12-1985 applied to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek, under S.97 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for issue of search warrant against applicant Pravinsingh for search of applicant No. 2 Rekha. The non-applicant in the said application averred that right from the date of Bidai applicant No. 2 Rekha has been ill-treated by applicant No. 1 and members of his family. She has been mercilessly beaten. It is further averred that on receiving this information he went to Rajnandgaon to see his daughter Rekha. However, she could not be found out. Thereupon he reached to mouza Kawardha which is a place of service of father-in-law of Rekha where according to the complainant Rekha was suffering from mental as well as physical torture. The complainant non-applicant No. 1 then requested non-applicant No. 2 to send Rekha with him. He refused. The applicant has further averred that Rekha disclosed to her father that she cannot live in the house as she has been badly beaten and ill-treated. The complainant further averred that on 18-12-1985 Rekha wrote a letter to the complainant that she should be taken within such time otherwise she would have no other alternative but to commit suicide. She had also sent a telegram on 19-12-1985. The complainant averred that the applicant No. 2 Rekha is wrongly confined by non-applicant No. 1 and members of his family and she is not allowed to do anything. 3. The learned Magistrate after going through the application which is on affidavit made by the complainant and the letter sent by Rekha on 18-12-1985 issued a warrant of search directing the Police Station Officer, Ramtek to depute head constable for the search of applicant Sou. Rekha. Accordingly, the warrant of search was issued, directing the Police Station Officer, Ramtek to search for Sou. Rekha in the house of applicant Pravinsingh, situated at Durga Chowk, Rajnandgaon and if found to take Sou. Rekha forthwith. The Police authorities executed the warrant of search on 21-12-1985. Rekha. Accordingly, the warrant of search was issued, directing the Police Station Officer, Ramtek to search for Sou. Rekha in the house of applicant Pravinsingh, situated at Durga Chowk, Rajnandgaon and if found to take Sou. Rekha forthwith. The Police authorities executed the warrant of search on 21-12-1985. It was served at mouza Kawardha, district Rajnandagaon at the residence of M.L. Singh, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kawardha, who is the father-in-law of Sou. Rekha. Accordingly on 21-12-1985 Sou. Rekha was produced before the learned Magistrate. She reported before the Court that she met with very cruel treatment from her husband and members of his family and hence she does not want to reside with her husband and will like to reside with her father the complainant. The learned Magistrate terminated the proceedings and passed order accordingly on 21-12-1985. 4. Mr. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant very vehemently, questioned the validity of the execution of warrant of search issued under S.97 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to Mr. Sirpurkar, the warrant has specified the place and also the name of the person where and from whom the search of Mrs. Rekha was to be made. Mr. Sirpurkar, therefore, submitted that executing a warrant of search at Kawardha at the place of father of applicant by the police agency was totally unauthorised. Mr. Sirpurkar made a submission that the matter of search is confined to the place and person as described in the warrant of search and as such they could not go beyond the same. According to Mr. Sirpurkar search of Mrs. Rekha at Kawardha is invalid and beyond the authority and as such bad in law. 5. Mr. Sirpurkar in sport of his submission placed reliance on a judgement in Chepa Mahton v. Emperor, reported in AIR 1928 Patna 550. The Patna High Court considering the scope of S.100 of Criminal Procedure Code (old) has observed :- "It is not illegal for a Magistrate to issue warrant under S.100 without confining it to any particular place". It was further observed that "warrant directing a police officer to find out a detained person from particular house. Officers endorsing it on to another stating that he might execute the warrant if the person was confined outside." It was held the act is without justification. This ruling cited by Mr. It was further observed that "warrant directing a police officer to find out a detained person from particular house. Officers endorsing it on to another stating that he might execute the warrant if the person was confined outside." It was held the act is without justification. This ruling cited by Mr. Sirpurkar, however has no application to the facts involved in the case before me. 6. Mr. Sirpurkar then taking me through the provisions of S.97 of the Criminal Procedure Code submitted that the provisions emphasised that such search shall be made in accordance therewith. Mr. Sirpurkar, therefore, urged that in accordance therewith as provided in the Section means the search is to be exclusively made at the place and from the persons specified, and if the person alleged Co be detained .is not found at the place so specified further search at a place other than mentioned is not legally permissible. I am unable to accept this contention. S.97 provides "..….. he may issue a search warrant and the persons to whom such warrant is directed may search for the person so confined, and search shall be made in accordance therewith. From close scrutiny of the scheme of S.97 what is predominant is a search of the person alleged to be detained wrongfully. The place and name of a person if any quoted in the warrant or supplied in the warrant are merely enabling. However, such particulars provided in the warrant do not confine the process of search. The wording in the Section that "such search shall be made in accordance therewith" does not in my opinion control the pursuit of search. As such, if the executing authority did not find Mrs. Rekha at Rajnandgaon a place mentioned in the warrant were legally competent to serve the warrant of search at Kawardha which is a place of her father-in-law where they have learnt the availability of the person alleged to have been detained. The submission as tried to be made according to me is without substance. 7. Mr. Sirpurkar then made a submission that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while issuing the warrant of search under S.97 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to Mr. Sirpurkar, the learned Magistrate acted mechanically and merely on the application presented by the applicant. According to Mr. 7. Mr. Sirpurkar then made a submission that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while issuing the warrant of search under S.97 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to Mr. Sirpurkar, the learned Magistrate acted mechanically and merely on the application presented by the applicant. According to Mr. Sirpurkar, the learned Magistrate ought to have inquired as to whether the applicant Mrs. Rekha was really in wrongful confinement. In the absence of such enquiry, the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing warrant amounts to illegal exercise of jurisdiction. I have reproduced the text of complaint and material made available before the learned Magistrate hereinbefore. S.97 is to be exercised with due care and caution. S.97 however, provides "where the Magistrate has reason to believe that any person is confined". The satisfaction contemplated under this Section is to be recorded on the basis of the material available. S.97 does not cast any obligation on the learned Magistrate to hold a detailed enquiry or to record such findings which art necessary after adjudication. S.97 contains enabling provisions where the Magistrate has to act diligently so as to avert any untoward incident. However, the satisfaction of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.97 should not be based on collateral consideration or such material which is not germane for exercising of such jurisdiction. Taking into consideration the material available on record particularly the application of a father-non-applicant duly supported by affidavit and a letter which have sufficiently disclosed the material necessitating the learned Magistrate to exercise the jurisdiction. The order is just and proper. Submission made in this behalf is without any merit. 8. Lastly, it is submitted by Mr. Sirpurkar that the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the proceedings under S.97 of the Cr. P. Code cast a stigma on the applicant husband and as such he is entitled to be heard in the matter. The learned Magistrate has not recorded his say while permuting his wife Mrs. Rekha to go to her parents. As such according to Mr. Sirpurkar the omission, vitiates the proceedings. S.97, Cr. P.C. does not provide for adjudication of any right nor it casts any stigma as complained by Mr. Sirpurkar. As such, the husband applicant before me is not justified in claiming any right to be heard before the Magistrate. Rekha to go to her parents. As such according to Mr. Sirpurkar the omission, vitiates the proceedings. S.97, Cr. P.C. does not provide for adjudication of any right nor it casts any stigma as complained by Mr. Sirpurkar. As such, the husband applicant before me is not justified in claiming any right to be heard before the Magistrate. Even otherwise taking into consideration the nature of the proceedings contemplated under S.97 such right of hearing of a person against whom the complaint is made cannot be entertained or considered. 9. The revision is totally without any substance. The same is liable to be dismissed. I dismiss the same. Revision allowed.