CHAMRU SAO Vs. BHPIRONPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHEDAR , A.J.C. 1. On 27th January 1932, the applicant filed a complaint in the Court of the District Magistrate, Balaghat, Under Section 9, Child Marriage Restraint Act (19 of 1929), alleging that the non-applicant, Bhairon Prasad had married his daughter of about 15 years of age to the son of non-applicant No. 2 Tularam, who was about 13 years of age. After examining the applicant Mr. Stapylton, dismissed the complaint Under Section 203, Criminal P.C., on the ground that it was filed about nine months after the offence took place and that the complainant had failed to satisfy him as to why he had interested himself in the matter. This order was rightly set aside by Mr. Amraotkar Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, who sent down the case for further enquiry. The case was then taken up by Mr. Comrie, who had in the meantime succeeded Mr. Stapylton, as District Magistrate, Balaghat, who further examined the complainant and again dismissed the complaint Under Section 203, Criminal P.C., on the ground that the complaint was actuated by sinister motive in moving the Court to take action against the non-applicant.

(2.) THE applicant then moved Mr. Paranjpe, Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, to set aside the aforesaid order but he declined to interfere holding that the motive of the complainant in filing the complaint was to harass the non-applicant and that the applicant had himself got his own minor daughter married against the provisions of the very lawby which he wanted the non applicant to be punished. It appears that the second reason assigned by the Sessions Judge, is clearly wrong as the applicant had married his daughter some four years ago, as the District Magistrate observes, which would be before the Child Marriage Restraint Act came into force. The applicant has now moved this Court to set aside the order of the District Magistrate. In exercising his discretion in summarily dismissing the complaint Under Section 203, Criminal P.C., the learned District Magistrate has unfortunately allowed himself to be influenced by irrelevant considerations. The motive of the complainant was no ground for dismissal of the complaint: see Ganga Reddy v. Samarapathy Reddy AIR 1916 Mad 303. What he had to consider is whether there was prima facie evidence of a criminal offence which in his judgment calls upon the alleged offender to answer: see In re Ganesh (1889) 13 Bom 590 (FB). The decision whether there was sufficient ground must be reached by the exercise of discretion based upon judicial consideration. There is no finding by the learned District Magistrate that the complaint was false or unsustainable on the evidence to be available. The delay of nine months in filing the complaint was, as pointed out by the Sessions Judge in his previous order of remand, no ground for dismissal of the complaint as Section 9, Act 19 of 1929 permits the filing of a complaint within one year of the solemnisation of the marriage in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed. For all these reason I set aside the order complained of and direct the District Magistrate to dispose of the case according to law after taking security for the complainant Under Section 11, Act 19 of 1929.