Ismail K.K. v. Ibrahim Haji

ORDER

Petitioners are accused in C.C No. 565 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vadakara. The case was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed under Sections 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (briefly put, “the Act”). Case borne out from the complaint is that the 1st accused married daughter of the 2nd accused on 03.07.2008 and on that day, the bride was a child. 3rd accused is the wife of the 2 accused and 4th accused is the father of the 1 accused. 5 accused was the Quasi, who had solemnized and blessed the marriage. Respondents 6 and 7 are persons related to the Mahal committee. According to the complainant, the date of birth of the minor girl is 06.02.1992 and on 03.07.2008 (date of alleged marriage), she was a child. These facts were welknown to the accused and they intentionally committed the offence.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant/1 respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint is not maintainable for the reason that there was an investigation by police in this matter, which culminated in Annexure III report submitted by the Police to the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer constituted under Section 16 of the Act. According to Annexure III report, there was no marriage as alleged in the complaint and it was only an engagement that took place on the alleged date. But actually Annexure III report would also show that the Police Officer requested more time for conducting investigation into the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that the scheme of the Act, especially, Section 15 of the Act, would show that despite the offence is cognizable and non-bailable one, a private complaint will not lie. It is further argued that in this case, it is more so because the Police had conducted investigation into the complaint and found that there was no marriage. I am unable to agree with this submission for the reason that no provision in the Act would show that there is a bar for a stranger to file a complaint alleging the offences under the Act as in the case of Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, as controlled by Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this petition. It is seen from the report submitted by the learned Magistrate dated 01.11.2013 that all the accused, except 1 accused, appeared before the Trial Court and the matter is posted for evidence of the complainant. Apparently charge has not been framed in this matter. Therefore, I leave it open to the petitioners to urge all legally possible contentions for claiming a discharge, including the one relating to maintainability of the complaint.

With this observation, Crl. M.C is dismissed.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.