M P GANGADHARAN Vs. T A RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent filed a petition before the Judicial I Class Magistrate's Court, Kunnamkulam alleging that the petitioner herein and two others have committed offences under S.4, 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That complaint was numbered by the Court as Crl. M.P. No. 1030/85. After conducting an enquiry, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 4-3-86 numbered it as S.T. No. 230/86 for offences under S.4, 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 as amended by the Act of 1978 and . ordered the issue of summons to accused. The petitioner, the first accused, has filed this petition, under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash all proceedings in S.T. No. 230/86.

(2.) The facts which lead to the complaint, in a nut-shell are as follows:-The first accused gave away in marriage his daughter to the second accused, the son of the third accused on 8-12-1984. On that day the bride was a child as defined in S.2(a) of the Act. Hence the accused have committed offences under S.4 to 6 of the Act.

(3.) First respondent filed the complaint on 11-3-1985. It was numbered as Crl. M.P. No. 1030/85. An enquiry was conducted by the learned Magistrate to find out whether the complaint is vexatious, frivolous or one meant to harass the accused. After conducting the enquiry, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case to be tried and accordingly numbered the petition as S.T. No. 230/86 and ordered the issue of summons to the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for quashing the proceedings before the Magistrate on the ground that the court took cognizance of the complaint only after the lapse of one year from the date of marriage and so it is not maintainable in view of the specific bar contained in S.9 of the Act. The learned counsel proceeds to argue that the enquiry that is contemplated by S.10 of the Act must be one preceding the taking cognizance of the offence by the court. In support of this contention the learned counsel relies on the decisions reported in Moidoo v. Mayan ( 1983 KLT 782 ) and In re Darapureddi Jaggu Naidu, and others ( AIR 1939 Mad. 530 ).