JUDGMENT Mr. V.N. Mehrotra, J. - This petition has been filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 24th July, 1991 by Judicial Magistrate (II), Bareilly and the revisional order dated 7.8.1991 by Sessions Judge, Bareilly. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Dori Lal, who has a resident of village Mudhiya Teli P.S. Nawabganj District Bareilly, owned 45 bighas of agricultural land. He had a daughter named Smt. Leelawati, who was married to one Sri Ram. Both had two daughters, namely, Km. Ganga Devi and Km. Raj Kumari. On the death of her father, Smt. Leelawati succeeded to his agricultural land. Smt. Leelawati also died leaving behind her two daughters as her heirs. Both the daughters were minor when she died in the year 1988. The opposite party No. 2, Bhoop Ram was related as maternal cousin brother of Smt. Leelawati. The present appellant Smt. Ketki Devi is the grand-mother of the minor daughters. Smt. Ketki Devi had three sons, one of whom is named as Sita Ram. Km. Ganga Devi died in June, 89. It is said that both these daughters were in the custody of opposite party No. 2, Bhoop Ram. When Leelawati died, the name of Bhoop Ram was entered as guardian of both the daughters in respect of the agricultural property by order of the Tahsildar concerned. After the death of Ganga Devi, a case of kidnapping in respect of Km. Raj Kumari, whose age is about seven years only was registered. The question arose about the custody of the girl pending trial. The learned Magistrate gave the girl in the interim custody of the present petitioner, Smt. Ketki Devi. Later on the matter was agitated before the Magistrate concerned and ultimately by the impugned order dated 24.7.91 the learned Magistrate directed that the girl be given in the custody of Bhoop Ram. The present petitioner filed revision against that order which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly on 7.8.91. 3. In the present petition both the above mentioned orders have been challenged by the petitioner asserting that she being the nearest relation of the minor child, the custody of the child should have been given to her. It is also asserted that Km. 3. In the present petition both the above mentioned orders have been challenged by the petitioner asserting that she being the nearest relation of the minor child, the custody of the child should have been given to her. It is also asserted that Km. Ganga Devi had died while in the custody of Bhoop Ram as there was harassment and ill treatment by Bhoop Ram and that in case Km. Raj Kumari is given in her custody, her life would be in danger. 4. On behalf of opposite party No. 2, however, counter affidavit has been filed denying that there was any harassment of Km. Ganga Devi by opposite party No. 2. On the contrary it has been asserted that actually Sita Ram, who is the son of the petitioner wanted to grab the entire agricultural land of the minors and it was due to the harassment by him that Km. Ganga Devi died. It was also asserted that actually S ita Ram managed to get her name mutated in respect of some agricultural land belonging to the minors and wrongfully sold the same. It is asserted that Smt. Ketki Devi and Sita Ram have started residing in a different village and in case Km. Raj Kumari is given in the custody of the appellant, she will be murdered so that Sita Ram could grab her land. It is also asserted that Sita Ram managed to get an entry in the Kutumb Register showing that Km. Ganga Devi and Km. Raj Kumari were his daughters and Smt. Leela Devi was married to him. The entries were expunged on the objection raised by the opposite party No. 2. It is also asserted that actually Sita Ram had murdered Smt. Leelawati, the mother of the minor children. 5. Both the parties have filed affidavits as well as documents in support of their contentions. 6. I have examined the material placed on record and I have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Magistrate has in his order, mentioned that opposite party No. 2 Bhoop Ram has been appointed as guardian by the Tahsildar in respect of the agricultural land belonging to the minor children. He had also recorded the statements of Km. Raj Kumari which showed that she was earlier residing with Bhoop Ram, when she addressed as her mama. The learned Magistrate has in his order, mentioned that opposite party No. 2 Bhoop Ram has been appointed as guardian by the Tahsildar in respect of the agricultural land belonging to the minor children. He had also recorded the statements of Km. Raj Kumari which showed that she was earlier residing with Bhoop Ram, when she addressed as her mama. The learned Magistrate concerned hold that it will be proper to give Km. Raj Kumari in interim custody of Bhoop Ram. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with this view while rejecting the revision filed by the present petitioner. On a consideration of all the materials I am of the view that it cannot be said that the orders by the Court below can amount to the abuse of the process of the Court or it may be in the interest of justice to set aside the same. The learned Magistrate has passed orders regarding interim custody only of the child. In case the present petitioner is interested in getting herself appointed as guardian of the child she can very well move the competent Civil Court for that purpose. In the present proceedings this Court cannot enter into controversial questions of fact in order to find out as to who is more suitable guardian. In case proper application is moved before the competent Civil Court for appointment of guardian, that Court can enter into all the aspects of the matter and pass suitable order which will be for the benefit of the minor, that Court can obviously act independently of the orders passed by the Courts in criminal proceedings. 7. With these observations this petition should be rejected. It is, however made clear that the learned Magistrate who has given the child Km. Raj Kumari in the custody of Bhoop Ram, opposite part No. 2, shall ensure proper welfare of the child and for that purpose he may call the opposite party No. 2 as well as the child to find out as to whether the opposite party No. 2 is maintaining her properly. The petition is disposed off accordingly.