K.S.Lodha, J. - (1.)The brief facts giving rise to this application under section 482 Cr. P.C. are that on 12.5.82, one Madan Lal Sehlot filed a complaint against the present petitioners and Marriage Restraint Act & (hereinafter called the Act alleging that the marriages of the two daughters, Kumari Manju and Kumari Baby alias Sheela, of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 aged about 12 and 8 respectively, who were living under the guardianship of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, were performed by the petitioners with two minor boys. sons of petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 and thus they contravened the provisions of the Act. It was also alleged that some other accused persons had also participated in those marriages and, therefore, they were also guilty. It was further contended in the complaint that the matter had been brought to the notice -of the police and the police had investigated the same but did not take any action of filing the challan and, therefore, the complaint was being filed. On this complaint, the learned Munsif Magistrate, Rajsamand, by his order dated 12.5.82 directed that the matter may be fixed for enquiry under sections 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. on 27. 5.82.
(2.)Another complaint had also been filed by one Ramchandra Paliwal on 13.5.82 before the same court against these accused persons in relation to the same matter. It further appears that the police was also investigating the matter and later the police submitted a report that although a case was made out against the accused Kani Ram alias Kishan Lal, Mitha Lal and Nana Lal, a challan could not be submitted in time and the limitation had expired and, therefore, a final report was being submitted. This matter pertained to the jurisdiction of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Railmagara but since the Presiding Officer of that court was not functioning, .the complaint had been filed. before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand, who had passed the order dated 12.5.82. Thereafter the matter came before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Railmagara. On the submission of this report by the police, the learned Magistrate appears to have noted under section 210 Cr. P.C. and directed issue of process against the accused Nana Lal, pyari Bai, Kani Ram alias Kishan Lal and Mitha Lal. Aggrieved of this order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Railmagara dated 14.10.82, the accused-petitioners filed a revision before the learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, challenging the order of the learned Magistrate issuing process against the accused persons on various grounds. The learned Add!. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand after hearing the parties, rejected the revision by his order dated 6.2.84. Hence, this application.
(3.)I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record.