Sunil Thomas, J.

The revision petitioner assails the order in CMP No. 978/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikara, alleging offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The revision petitioner alleged that the first accused married her and a child was born to them. The 2nd accused was the mother of the first accused. Later, she was harassed in connection with demand for dowry. Hence, alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, filed CMP No. 978/2016 before the Magistrate. The court below, by the impugned order, held that in the light of decision reported in Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P. and another (AIR 2015 [(SC) 1758) the complaint cannot be entertained without exhausting the remedies under section 154(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that cognizance is to be taken under Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and not under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. This was negatived on the ground that Priyanka's case(supra) does not provide any exemption to special law and in the light of decision of this Court in Aloshia Jo