THIPPAREDDIGARI CHINNAKONDA REDDI Vs. SESHI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the District Magistrate under the following circumstances:

(2.) A complaint was filed against the respondent and five others under Sections 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act (19 of 1929) in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Kurnool. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and without holding an enquiry or investigation into the matter, the Bub Divisional Magistrate ordered notice of the petition to the accused under Section 8 of the Act. Before he could proceed further into the matter the casa was transferred to the Additional First Class Magistrate's Court, Nandyal. At that stage, the accused filed a petition before the Additional First, Class Magistrate under Section 10 of the Act to dismiss the complaint as the mandatory provisions of that section were not observed by the Court that issued the process. The Additional First Class Magistrate, Nandyal, gave notice of that petition to the complainant and his pleader and as they did not appear before him, he dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Criminal P. C. The District Magistrate made this reference recommending the setting aside of that order on the ground that once the process was issued the Court has no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint under Section 203, Criminal P. C. notwithstanding the illegality of the issue of summons. Instead, he thought that the trial Court should have acquitted the accused under Section 247, Cr. P. C.

(3.) The first question for consideration is whether the procedure adopted by the trial court is correct. The answer to this depends upon the terms of Section 203, Criminal P. C. Section 203, Criminal P. C. reads thus: