(1.) THIS revision application was filed by Janardan who was a complainant in the trial Court. He complained of an offence under section 494, Indian Penal Code, read with section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The complainant is the father of one Chandrabhaga who is a minor girl. Chandrabhaga is alleged to have been married to opponent Guna while she was a minor, in about 1953. The complaint was that in spite of a valid marriage subsisting between Chandrabhaga and Guna, Guna again married opponent No. 2 Milibai. The marriage was alleged to have been brought about by parents of Guna, one of whom i. e. , father Balkrishna is opponent No. 3 in this Court. Opponent No. 4 Laxman in this Court is the father of Milibai who is alleged to have contracted the second marriage with opponent Guna. As many as 10 persons were impleaded as accused in the original complaint. The complaint was filed by Janardan before the First Class Magistrate, Saoner, and was presented on 25-7-1957. In paragraph 10 of the complaint the complainant had stated as follows:
(2.) AFTER the complaint was presented, the trying Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant on the same day but adjourned the case to 9-8-1957, noting that he would like to examine one Vithoba by way of preliminary exquiry. This Vithoba was examined on 22-8-1957. On that date the Magistrate adjourned the case to go through the record and the case was posted for 2-9-1957. On 2-9-1957 the case was again adjourned to 5-9-57. On 5-9-1957 the Magistrate noted as follows:
(3.) ON 13-12-57 Mr. Nagmote, one of the counsel appearing for the accused, raised a contention that the complainant has to prove the age of his daughter Chandrabhaga who had not so far appeared in Court. The trying Magistrate therefore fixed the case to hear parties on this point. The girl Chandrabhaga was actually produced on the next day of hearing i. e. , on 24-12-57, and a certified copy of the date of birth of Chandrabhaga was filed along with an affidavit showing that Chandrabhaga was 12 years of age. The matter was postponed from hearing to hearing, and ultimately on 25-1-1958 the trying Magistrate noted the following order in the ordersheet of that date: