JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are the persons against whom complaints were filed by respondent no. 2 here in this petition, i.e., Himmat Singh S/o Shaitan Singh alleging that the petitioners had contravened the provisions of Sections 5 & 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. The complaints were registered at Police Station, Khinwara District Pali. After investigation, the police submitted the Final Report stating that no offence under the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act had taken place. This Final Report was submitted to the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Desuri on 22.12.1990. In view of this position, after considering the matter, the learned Magistrate did not take cognizance of any offence and passed order dated 12.2.1991. 2. Against the aforesaid order, respondent no. 2 here in this petition filed a revision application in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali, being Criminal Revision No. 24/91. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed an order dated 6.8.1992. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that though there was no direct evidence to come to the conclusion that in the morning of 2.5.1990 marriage took place, yet there was sufficient evidence in the shape of deposition of Sharwan Singh and Bhoora Ram to the effect that daughter of Poora Ram, Mst. Sonki aged 3-4 years was married to Poona S/o Gamna Ram aged 10 years on the morning of 2.5.1990. In view of this conclusion, the learned Sessions Judge came to the finding that the offence Under Sections 5 & 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act had taken place as far as Gamna Ram and Poora Ram were concerned. After making the aforesaid observations, the learned Sessions Judge passed order to the effect that the case against Gamna Ram and Poora Ram be registered for the aforesaid offences. This order was passed on 6.8.1992. 4. While passing the aforesaid order, the learned Sessions Judge, inter alia, observed as follows:- " vr% muds fo:) bu vijk/kksa ds fy, fu;fer nkafMd izdj.k ithad`r fd;k tkuk pkfg,A " The petitioners feel aggrieved by the aforesaid observations, and hence this petition Under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed. 5. 4. While passing the aforesaid order, the learned Sessions Judge, inter alia, observed as follows:- " vr% muds fo:) bu vijk/kksa ds fy, fu;fer nkafMd izdj.k ithad`r fd;k tkuk pkfg,A " The petitioners feel aggrieved by the aforesaid observations, and hence this petition Under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that while exercising powers Under section 398 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to direct the learned Court to take cognizance of the offences in question. The learned Sessions Judge at the most could have remanded the matter to the trial Court and could have given appropriate directions for making further enquiry in accordance with law. There is much substance in the aforesaid submission. This is very clear from the language of Section 398 of the Code, which reads as follows: "398. On examining any record Under section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed Under section 203 or sub-section (4) of section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged : Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made." In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a Single Bench decision of this Court reported in Jagannath v. The State of Raj., Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1989 p. 709 . In that case the learned Single Judge has taken the view that once the Sessions Court comes to the conclusion that the dismissal of the complaint was not proper, all that the Sessions Court was required to do was to remand the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate with a direction, either to himself make a further inquiry in the matter or direct any of his subordinate Magistrates to make further inquiry into the matter. No power was vested in the learned Addl. No power was vested in the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in a revision to direct the trial Court to take cognizance of the case. 6. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations made by the learned Single Judge. In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in making the observations as follows : " vr% muds fo:) bu vijk/kksa ds fy, fu;fer nkafMd izdj.k ithad`r fd;k tkuk pkfg,A " In the result, the aforesaid observations made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge are required to be quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for proceeding further in accordance with law. It will be open to the learned Magistrate to consider all the relevant aspects of the case and to come to his own conclusion in accordance with law. 7. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge stands reversed and set aside to the aforesaid extent only. 8. The Misc. Petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.Petition Allowed. *******