THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2956 OF 2007 DATED: 15-07-2010 Between 1.T.Raghunadha Rao and others …Petitioners –A1 to A7 And 1.G.Dhanunjaya Rao 2.State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents-Complainants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2956 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.240 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. It is alleged in the complaint that the 1st respondent herein married one Sailaja, daughter of petitioner Nos. 1 and herein on 13-02- 2005, which was an arranged marriage held at Susaram village, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District as per Hindu Caste Customs and thereafter, the marriage was consummated and the family was put up at Hyderabad in July, 2005. A1 took Sailaja to Susaram on the pretext that A2’s health was not good and thereafter she was sent to Hyderabad. The 1st respondent herein doubted the age of Sailaja as minor and stated that Sailaja was minor as on the date of marriage, aged 16 years. Hence, he filed private complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the de facto complainant happily married the girl, that there is no question of suppressing the age of the girl, that III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, lacks inherent jurisdiction to try the offences, that the complaint is barred by limitation, that the woman is not liable for punishment under Section 6 of the Act and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 4. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to give effect to the order passed under this Code or to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. There cannot be any dispute that if the allegations in the complaint made out prima facie case of the offences alleged, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 5. Under Section 5 of the Act, whoever performs, conducts or directs any child marriage shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months and shall also be liable to fine. The above provision makes it clear that at the time of marriage, the girl should not be less than 18 years. Section 6 of the Act provides punishment for parent or guardian concerned in a child marriage. Proviso to Section 6 of the Act makes it clear that no woman shall be punishable with imprisonment. That does not mean a woman cannot be convicted and sentenced to fine. 6. The case of the 1st respondent herein is that he married the girl on 13-02-2005 as per Hindu Caste Customs in Susaram village, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District. All the accused shown his wife as major. On appearance, the 1st respondent got doubt and insisted the accused to give educational certificates of the girl. But they did not disclose the same. After lot of enquiry, he found SSC marks sheet of his wife in the month of August, 2006, wherein the age of his wife was shown as 21- 06-1989. So by the date of marriage, she was not completed 18 years of age, which is punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. Though the limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is provided only one year, the 1st respondent got the knowledge of the offence in the month of August, 2006. Whereas the complaint was lodged in the month of February, 2007. Therefore, the complaint is well within the period of limitation. In view of the fact that the allegations made out prima facie case of the offences alleged, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that keeping in view of the age of the petitioners, their presence can be dispensed with. That aspect has to be decided by the trial Court. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to make an application and the same shall have to be disposed of in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Observations, if any, made in this petition are only for the purpose of disposal of the present petition. However, limitation aspect including jurisdiction as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners are left open to be decided by the trial Court basing on the evidence. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:15-07-2010 Hsd