PREMWATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. application filed by Premwati and 9 others u/Sec. 482 CrPC is directed against the judgment and order dt 7 -11 -1981, passed by the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, whereby he has dismissed the revision of the applicant and maintained the order dated 28 -8 -1980 of the Magistrate in Case No. 541 of 1980 by which cognizance of offences under Section 5/6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (here -in -after called the Act) was taken. The applicants have prayed for quashing the order dated 28 -8 -80 passed by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Ramjit Singh complainant filed a complaint on 19 -7 -1979 before the Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr against all the ten applicants under Section 5/6 of the Act with the allegations that the applicants committed the offence on 25 -10 -1978 by performing the marriage of a minor boy, Hira Lal. The Magistrate after taking evidence under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC took the cognizance of the offence and passed the order for summoning the applicants on 7 -7 -1979. That complaint was however dismissed under Section 203 CrPC for want of non appearance of the complainant on the date fixed i.e. 23 -1 -1980. The complainant thereafter filed a fresh complaint in the court of the Magistrate on 30 -1 -1980 on the same facts and against the same accused. It was alleged that complainant mistook the aforesaid date 23 -1 -80 as 30 -1 -80. Therefore, he failed to appear and hence he filed a fresh complaint on 30 -1 -1980. The learned Magistrate summoned the record of the previous complaint and after taking evidence under Section 202 CrPC took the cognizance on 28 -8 -1980 on the subsequent complaint and summoned the applicants. The applicants appeared before the Magistrate and moved an application objecting the complaint as time barred. The Magistrate dismissed the application by means of the impugned order, against which they preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, who has dismissed the same by holding that discretion u/Sec. 473 CrPC has been rightly exercised by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) REFERRING Sections 4 and 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, Mr. R. P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants vehementally urged that Section 473 CrPC will not override the specific provision made u/Sec. 9 of the aforesaid Act.