IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1233 of 2004(D) -------------------------- CC.516/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, THAMARASSERY .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- 1. RAGHAVAN, S/O.NALLALAN, CHOLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKAVAYAL, PUTHUPPADY, THAMARASSERY. 2. KALLIANI, W/O.RAGHAVAN, CHOLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKAVAYIL, PUTHUPPADY THAMARASSERY. 3. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.RAGHAVAN, CHOLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKAVAYAL, PUTHUPPADY, THAMARASSERY. 4. RAJU, S/O.NALLALAN, CHOLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKAVAYAL, PUTHUPPADY, THAMARASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. GEETHA, W/O.MOHANAN, CHOLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKAVAYAL, PUTHUPPADY, THAMARASSERY. 2. STATE REP: BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.M.C.NO. 1233 of 2004 ======================== Dated this the 30th day of May 2008 ORDER Petitioners 1 to 4, who are accused in C.C.No.516/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thamarasserry registered on the basis of a private complaint instituted by the first respondent alleging offence under Section 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), filed this petition before this Court with a prayer to quash the complaint filed against them by the first respondent. The grounds mentioned in this petition by the petitioners are that there is no possibility of entering upon a finding of guilty under Section 5 of the Act and that no proper enquiry was made by the learned Magistrate before taking cognizance of the above case. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that as per Section 10 of the Act, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code by himself or direct the Magistrate subordinate to him to make such an enquiry. CRMC. 1233/2004 -2- 3. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent also. 4. It is submitted by them that the learned Magistrate has conducted an enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal procedure and took cognizance of the offence after recording the sworn statement of the complainant/first respondent. Thus preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act has been conducted by the learned Magistrate. 5. On a perusal of the statements of facts stated in the petition particularly paragraph 2 therein, it is specifically mentioned that the learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement of the first respondent and took cognizance of the offence under Section 5 of the Act. After perusing the records available in the present petition, I find no abusive of process of law in the present case and as such there is no ground for quashing the proceedings and the complaint as prayed for in this petition. In the result, this Crl.M.C.is dismissed. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.