Ravindra Maithani, J.

1. The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 12.07.2022, passed in Complaint Case No. 25 of 2022, Dr. Mrinal Prakash Barua vs. Dr. Anita Verma and others, passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun (for short, "the case").

2. By the impugned order, the complaint filed by the revisionist has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

4. The revisionist filed a complaint against the private respondents under Section 75 read with Sections 84, 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, "the Act").

5. The revisionist and his wife, who is the respondent No. 2, are living separate to each other. According to the compliant dated 30.08.2021, their child Samar, was staying with the revisionist till 13.08.2021. On 14.08.2021, according to the complaint, after 02:00 PM, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 abducted Samar from the custody of the revisionist from his house. The complaint is much in detail. According to the complaint, Samar was continuously kept secretly from the revisionist by the respondent No. 2. On 27.08.2021, at about 07:00 in the evening, the revisionist spotted Samar with his wife, the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3. When he tried to approach Samar, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 took him inside to their new accommodation and they required the revisionist to get a court's order. The revisionist wanted to meet his son, but he was stopped from doing so, even by the security. On 02.09.2021, according to the revisionist, the respondent No. 3 took the child away from Rishikesh and is confined at some accommodation in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

6. The Court recorded the statement of the revisionist under Section 200 of the Code and at the stage of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, recorded the statements of Kumar Satish Ravi and Smt. Sunil Kumari. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the complaint has been dismissed.

7. The court in the impugned order has observed that the relationship between the revisionist and his wife are strained and the respondent No. 2, the wife of the revisionist has already filed a suit for divorce in the court at Delhi. The child is in the custody of his mother. The revisionist has levelled allegations of abusing against the maternal grandmother and grandfather of the child. The court observed that it is not shown that in any manner, the child either physically or mentally would have been abused. The court also observed that if a child at the age 04 years has been staying with his mother, who herself is a doctor, it cannot be assumed that the child is abused.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is the biological father of the child and he is not allowed to meet the child. He would submit that the child is neither staying with his mother nor with the revisionist, it amounts to abuse of the child. Reference has been made to the provisions of the Act. He would also raise the following points in his submissions:-

"(i) The child Samar is, in fact, a child in need of care and protection and it falls under the definition of 2(14)(iii) of the Act.

(ii) Section 75 of the Act makes such acts punishable, which amounts to abuse to a child. Learned counsel has placed emphasis on the words, as mentioned in Section 75 of the Act i.e., "in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering."

(iii) It is argued that the child is away from his parents. It may likely cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering to the child."

9. The revisionist himself appeared and would submit that human rights means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. He would submit that the issue is rights of a child, who has been taken away from the revisionist. He would submit that the process of interrupting and obstructing a fundamental and biological human need of a child as well as a species defining characteristics of human (parenting) by wrongful means is abuse of that child. The inevitability of a likelihood of unnecessary mental/physical suffering resulting from separation of a child from a loving parent is common sense.

10. It is submitted that the private respondents are obstructing the child to have access to his biological father and it in turns, will definitely amount to mental suffering to a child.

11. Undoubtedly, the Act makes provision with regard to child. "Child in need of Care and Protection" has been referred to Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Reference has been made to Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, which is as hereunder:-

"2(14)(iii) who resides with a person (whether a guardian of the child or not) and such person--

(a) has injured, exploited, abused or neglected the child or has violated any other law for the time being in force meant for the protection of child; or

(b) has threatened to kill, injure, exploit or abuse the child and there is a reasonable likelihood of the threat being carried out; or

(c) has killed, abused, neglected or exploited some other child or children and there is a reasonable likelihood of the child in question being killed, abused, exploited or neglected by that person; or"

12. It is submitted that an offence under Section 75 of the Act has been made. Section 75 provides as hereunder:-

"75. Punishment for cruelty to child. - Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or willfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both:

Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not willful and the penal provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases:

Provided further that if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organisation, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to five years, and fine which may extend up to five lakhs rupees:

Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakhs rupees."

13. Undoubtedly, a child's rights are to be protected at all costs. If there is a dispute regarding the custodial child or anything which relates the child, the maximum sufferers is the child alone. What is being argued is a child's life is extreme.

14. Learned counsel for the revisionist would argue that in the instant case, it was not upon to revisionist to show that the act of the respondents would cause the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering.

15. It is argued that, in fact, Section 75 of the Act uses the word that such act may likely cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering. It is submitted that the child is away from his mother and father. It would likely cause suffering to him. Therefore, the impugned order is not in accordance with law.

16. The revisionist had filed a complaint for prosecution of the offender. He has not sought the custody of a child. Arguments have been advanced with regard to child's rights, but it is admitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that no petition ever has been filed by the revisionist seeking the custody of the child. The child is not taken by some third person. It is the case of the complainant himself, that on 14.08.2021, when the child was missing from the house of the revisionist, he was taken by his mother. The child was born in the year 2019. Parties were married in the year 2013. The child was just two years of age when he was taken away by his mother. It is stated that the child is with his maternal grandmother and grandfather. Can the court itself presume that an offence has been committed The court has rightly concluded that no prima facie offence is made out. There appears to be no reason to interfere in the revision and the revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

17. The revision is dismissed in limine.