JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for questioning the maintainability of the proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondent No.2 - wife of the petitioner under section 97 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for searching of his son, who alleged to have been wrongfully confined by the petitioner. 2. It is noticed that in the said proceedings under section 97 Cr.P.C. on 17.12.2012, the S.D.M., Bhadra issued a search warrant for recovery of minor son of the respondent No.2. The petitioner has challenged the said order by way of filing S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.16/2013 before this Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 26.07.2013, while quashing the proceedings under section 97 CrPC, pending in the Court of S.D.M., Bhadra, disposed of the petition with certain directions to the petitioner as wel as to the S.D.M. and the police authorities. Petition No.16/2013 before this Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 26.07.2013, while quashing the proceedings under section 97 CrPC, pending in the Court of S.D.M., Bhadra, disposed of the petition with certain directions to the petitioner as wel as to the S.D.M. and the police authorities. The order dated 26.07.2013 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is reproduced hereunder: " ;kph dh vksj ls ;g fof/kd ;kfpdk fo}ku ,l0Mh0,e0 Hkknjk }kjk izdj.k la[;k 10@12 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-12-12 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gS mDr vkns'k ls ,l Mh ,e Hkknjk us ;kph rFkk vikph la[;k 2 ds ukckfyx iq= dks cjken djus gsrq lpZ okj.V tkjh djus ds vkns'k fn;s ftlds fo:) ;kph us ;g fof/kd ;kfpdk izLrqr dh gSA fofo/k ;kfpdk dh lquokbZ ds nkSjku] fnukad 17-7-2013 dks bl U;k;ky; us ;kph dks ;g funsZ'k fn;k Fkk fd os vius iq= ;ksxs'k dks bl U;k;ky; ds le{k vkt dh lquokbZ ds fnu is'k djsA vkt i{kdkjku nksuksa U;k;y; ds le{k mifLFkr vk;s&;kph rFkk v;kphx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k us i{kdkjku ls funsZ'k izkIr dj bl U;k;ky; dks lwfpr fd;k fd i{kdkjku nksuksa lkFk&lkFk jgdj viuk oSokfgd thou [kq'kh&[kq'kh fcrkus dks rS;kj gS] ijUrq mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k fd nksuksa gh i{kdkjku ds oSokfgd thou dh lqj{kk gsrq ,l Mh ,e Hkknjk dks funsZ'k fn;k tkos fd lEcfU/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh dks ?kjsyq fgalk vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr lqj{kk ds funsZ'k iznku djsaA ekeys ds rF;ksa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, fofo/k ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkrh gS& vk{ksfir vkns'k o fo}ku ,l Mh ,e Hkknjk ds le{k py jgs /kkjk 97 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk dh dk;Zokgh fujLr dh tkrh gSA nksuksa i{kdkjku ,l Mh ,e Hkknjk ds le{k 2 flrEcj] 2013 dks mifLFkr jgsaxs ,oa ,d nwljs ds lkFk jg dj viuk oSokfgd thou lkFk&lkFk fcrkus ckcr gyQukek fo}ku ,l Mh ,e Hkknjk ds le{k is'k djsaxsA v;kph lqfe=k }kjk bl vk'k; dk gyQukek ,l Mh ,e Hkknjk ds le{k is'k fd;k tk;sxk fd og ;kph ds lkFk mlds ?kj ij lkFk jg dj viuk oSokfgd drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djus dks rS;kj gS] bl izdkj dk gyQukek is'k gksus ij ,l Mh ,e lEcfU/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh dks ikacn djsxk fd os ikf{kd rkSj ij nksuksa i{kdkjku dh lqj{kk ckcr fjiksVZ izLrqr djsxk rFkk ;kph rFkk v;kph ds e/; fdlh izdkj dk ,slk erHksn mRiUu u gks tks fd ?kjsyq fgalk vf/kfu;e ds mYya?ku dh rkjhQ esa vkrk gks bl ckr dks lqfuf'pr djsxkA ;kph fo}ku ,l Mh ,e ds le{k ;g gyQukek is'k djsxk fd og v;kph lqfe=k dks LoSPNk ls vius lkFk vyx edku esa j[ksxk ,oa v;kph o vius cPpksa dh iwjh ftEesnkjh fuHkk;sxkA mDr izdkj ls gyQukek is'k gksus ij fo}ku ,l Mh ,e Hkknjk lEcfU/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh dks funsZ'k tkjh djsxk fd Fkkukf/kdkjh ikf{kd fjiksVZ izkIr dj fo}ku ,l Mh ,e Hkknjk ds le{k is'k djsxk & i{kdkjku }kjk fn;s x;s gyQukeksa dh xSj&ikyuk fd;s tkus ij fo}ku ,l Mh ,e Hkknjk iqu% 97 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk dh dk;Zokgh [kksyus dks le{k jgsxk vFkok vko';drk iM+us ij Fkkukf/kdkjh dks ;g funsZ'k nsus dks Lora= jgsxk fd og lEcfU/kr U;k;ky; esa ?kjsyq fgalk vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr dk;Zokgh izkjEHk djsA " 3. It appears that the petitioner has not furnished affidavit before the S.D.M. to the effect that he is ready to live with the respondent No.2 in a separate house and would also provide proper security to her, as per the directions given by this Court on 26.07.2013. The S.D.M., after observing this fact, has reopened the proceedings initiated under section 97 Cr.P.C. by passing the following order: " 28-5-14 i=koyh is'k gqbZ izkfFkZ;k lqfe=k o vizkFkhZ jkepUnz mifLFkr & odqyk;s Qjhdsu mifLFkr & i{kdkjku dks lqyg gsrq dkQh le>kbZ'k dh xbZ exj ckotwn le>kbZ'k dh izkfFkZ;k lqfer=k us bl 'krZ ij vizkFkhZ ds lkFk tkus dh lgefr nh fd mudks vyx edku j[kk tkos ,oa mldh lqj{kk dh xkj.Vh nh tkos & vizkFkhZ dks gYQukek is'k djus ds fy, dgk ysfdu mlds gyQukek nsus ls bUdkj fd;k& vizkFkhZ U;k;ky; dks ;g fo'okl fnyokus esa vlQy jgk fd og lqfe=k dks lkFk ysdj tk,xk o mls vyx edku esa j[kdj mldh lqj{kk djsxk & vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj /kkjk 97 CRPC dh dk;Zokgh iqu% izkjEHk dh tkrh gS& Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkukf/kdkjh ds uke lpZ okj.V tkjh gks& i=koyh lpZ okj.V dh ikyuk gksdj fnukad 3-6-14 dks is'k gksA " 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the proceedings under section 97 CrPC, initiated at the instance of the respondent, are not maintainable as the petitioner is the natural guardian of his minor son and it cannot be said that he has illegally confined his son. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Satya Narayan v. Bihari Lal, 2002(2) WLC (Raj.) 174 and Jaishree Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2012(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1684 and argued that the proceedings initiated under section 97 Cr.P.C. may kindly be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 have argued that the proceedings under section 97 Cr.P.C. have been initiated by the S.D.M. as per the order of this Court passed in S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.16/2013 on 26.07.2013 and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 28.05.2014. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 have argued that the proceedings under section 97 Cr.P.C. have been initiated by the S.D.M. as per the order of this Court passed in S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.16/2013 on 26.07.2013 and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 28.05.2014. It is also argued that the order dated 26.07.2013, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has kept it open to revive the proceedings under section 97 Cr.P.C., has not been challenged by the petitioner before any higher court and the same has attained finality, therefore, now it is not open for the petitioner to question the maintainability of the proceedings under section 97 Cr.P.C. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the proceedings under section 97 CrPC, initiated at the instance of the respondent No.2, have been quashed by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2013, however, this Court has kept it open at the discretion of the SDM, Bhadra to revive the said proceedings, if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions given in the order. From the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by S.D.M. Bhadra, it is clear that the petitioner has not filed affidavit, as directed by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2013, and, therefore, the S.D.M., Bhadra has revived the proceedings under section 97 Cr.P.C. and ordered for issuance of search warrant for recovery of the minor son of the respondent No.2 and the petitioner. 8. It is also not in dispute that the order dated 26.07.2013 has not been challenged by the petitioner before the higher court and the same has attained finality and, therefore, in such circumstances, now it is not open for the petitioner to question the continuance of the proceedings under section 97 Cr.P.C. when the said proceedings are revived as per the directions of this Court. 9. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 are present in person and the petitioner has stated that at present he is residing in Delhi while serving in Indian Railways and the minor son of him and respondent No.2 is residing at village Bungi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. 9. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 are present in person and the petitioner has stated that at present he is residing in Delhi while serving in Indian Railways and the minor son of him and respondent No.2 is residing at village Bungi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. From above circumstances, it is clear that at present, the minor son of the petitioner and respondent No.2 is not in the custody of the father and looking to this circumstance also, the proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondent No.2 under section 97 Cr.P.C. cannot be terminated. 10. Resultantly, this Court does not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The learned S.D.M. is free to issue fresh search warrant for the recovery of the minor son of respondent No.2 and the petitioner and is also free to direct the concerned S.H.O. to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act before the concerned court, if facts demand so.Petition dismissed. *******