JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bayana dated 8.7.92, whereby he has upheld the order of learned trial Court dated 30.11.91 whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offenceunder sections 5, 6 and 12(5) of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. 2. One Tara Chand complainant has submitted a report to SDM, Bayana about the marriage of Brijesh Kumari alias Vijay Laxmi with Deenu. The SDM has sent that report to SHO, Bayana for investigation. Thereafter, on July 5, 1991, non-petitioner No.2 Tara Chand has also filed a complaint in the trial Court alleging the same offences against the petitioners. The statement of Tara Chand was recorded and also one Rameshwar under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code and on the basis of these statements, the learned Munsif Magistrate, Bayana has taken the cognizance against the petitioners for the said offences. 3. Being dissatisfied with that order, the petitioners carried the matter before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bayana. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also upheld the view taken by the trial Court. Being dissatisfied with the judgments/orders of the Courts below, the petitions have filed this petition u/ Section 11 Criminal Procedure Code. 4. None present for respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in this case, non-petitioner No.2 Tara Chand has made a cony plaint to SDM and he sent the report for investigation to SHO, Police Station Bayana and the matter was under investigation. Meanwhile, Tara Chand has also filed a complaint in the Court and the Court without taking into account the result of the investigation, has taken the cognizance against the petitioners, that is contrary to the provisions of Section 11 Criminal Procedure Code Section 210 Criminal Procedure Code reads as under: "210. Meanwhile, Tara Chand has also filed a complaint in the Court and the Court without taking into account the result of the investigation, has taken the cognizance against the petitioners, that is contrary to the provisions of Section 11 Criminal Procedure Code Section 210 Criminal Procedure Code reads as under: "210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence - (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such 'inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting he investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating (3) police officer under Section 11 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code." 5. This Court had also an occasion to deal with similar issue in the case of Vishnu Datt & Others v. The State of Rajasthan (RCC 1982 Page 416) . In pare 6 the issue has discussed as under: "Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure to be followed when a case is instituted otherwise than on a police report and the matter is also under police investigation on the basis of the First Information Report. In pare 6 the issue has discussed as under: "Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure to be followed when a case is instituted otherwise than on a police report and the matter is also under police investigation on the basis of the First Information Report. As provided in that Section when a case is instituted otherwise than on the police report and it is brought to the notice of the Magistrate during the course of inquiry or trial that investigation by the Police relating to that incident is in progress, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings in the complaint case and shall call for the report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. The impugned order and the order sheets proceedings the same show that the learned Magistrate, after looking into the case diary, directed the A.P.P. to get the report of investigation filed. The A.P.P. failing to do, so, the Court proceeded with the inquiry and took cognizance of the offence by the impugned order. Simply because the report was not being filed, the Magistrate should not have proceeded with the case rather should have further directed Station House Officer concerned or in case of his non-complying with the directions, written to the higher authorities in this concern and get the report of the progress of the case. To put it in other words the Court should have directed the investigation officer to complete the investigation and file the report instead of proceeding with the inquiry and taking cognizance. The provisions of Section 11 requiring the Magistrate to stay the inquiry or trial on the complaint till the report of the Investigating Officer is received are mandatory in nature." 6. When the Magistrate has without receiving the report of investigation by the Police Station concerned, on the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the Magistrate was not justified in taking the cognizance. Similarly, an injunction was issued restraining the marriage in question without giving any notice to the petitioners. As per provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, no injunction can be issued unless the notice is given to the concerned parties. The Magistrate has neither asked for the report of police investigation regarding the offences in question nor the notice has been given under Section 12(2) of the Act. As per provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, no injunction can be issued unless the notice is given to the concerned parties. The Magistrate has neither asked for the report of police investigation regarding the offences in question nor the notice has been given under Section 12(2) of the Act. In view of this matter, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is contrary to the provisions of Section 11 Criminal Procedure Code and Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act, 1929. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court, as well as, the appellate Court taking cognizance against the petitioners without the report of investigation conducted by the police, regarding the same offence which is subject-matter of the complaint also, is erroneous. Hence, I set aside the aforesaid orders of the Court below. 7. The petition is allowed as indicated above.Petition allowed. *******