ORAL ORDER

The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 are before the Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.4782 of 2022 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli arising out of crime in Crime No.61 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri U. Sadakath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B. N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -

The petitioners are accused 1 to 5 and complainant is the State. It is a suo motu complaint by the State through the Child Development Project Officer, Devanahalli Taluk on 09-08-2021. It is the case of the prosecution in the complaint that 1^st petitioner/accused No.1 had performed the marriage with a minor by name Rakshitha, daughter of petitioners 4 and 5/accused No.2 and 4. On the said complaint investigation is conducted, which revealed that the daughter of petitioners 4 and 5 was given in marriage to accused No.1, who was of 27 years old at the said point in time and the girl was 16 years old and today the girl is 20 years old. On the said investigation, the jurisdictional police filed a charge sheet. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and registers Criminal Case No.4782 of 2022 against the petitioners. Further proceedings are in progress and the matter is at the stage of hearing before charge. At this juncture, the petitioners have approached this Court, in the subject petition, calling in question the said proceedings.

SUBMISSIONS:

PETITIONERS:

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the parents of the 1^st accused and the victim are innocent. They were ignorant of law and its consequences. When COVID-19 had engulfed the globe, they wanted to get the daughter married fearing that the pandemic would take away the lives. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the daughter was 16 years old at the time of marriage, they got the marriage performed with accused No.1, who was 27 years old at that point in time. The learned counsel would submit that the husband and the wife are living happily, and the marriage is registered after the girl turned 18 years and there are no overt acts committed by any of the persons. The trial undoubtedly will end in acquittal. On these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this Court may not permit further trial to be conducted for an eventual acquittal. He would seek quashment of proceedings.

STATE:

5. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B N Jagadeesha would refute the submissions by contending that it is an admitted fact that the girl at the time of marriage was 16 years of age and the boy was 27 years of age. The girl could not have been given in marriage by the parents, when she was a minor. Therefore, admitted facts themselves would reveal that there is enough material to proceed against the accused. He would submit that since the matter is at the stage of hearing before charge, this Court should not interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

CONSIDERATION

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, as they are all a matter of record, they are in fact admitted facts. Marriage takes place between accused No.1 and the daughter of accused Nos.2 and 4 on 30-08-2021, at which point in time the girl was 16 years old and the boy/accused No.1 was 27 years old. The other accused are parents of the victim and other members of the family, who sat together and performed the marriage at Sri Thabblingeshwara Temple, Bullahalli Village, Devenahalli Taluk. Based upon the said incident of marriage, which took place on 30-08-2021 a complaint is made to the j