Judgment :- This revision has been preferred by the complainant in C.C.No.378 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur. 2. In this revision, the revision petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,No.1, Tirupattur in C.C.No.378 of 2005. C.M.P.No.1252 of 2005 is the number assigned to the private complaint preferred by the complainant which was subsequently taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate as C.C.No.378 of 2005. The order passed in C.M.P.No.1252 of 2005 reads that since there is no prima facie case made out against A3 to A10 to issue process to them, the learned Judicial Magistrate has dismissed, the complaint as against A3 to A10 under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. which necessitated the complainant to prefer this revision. 3. Heard Mr. P.S. Kothandaraman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.V.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and considered their respective submissions. 4. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 will go to show that A3, A5, A8, to A10 have participated in the marriage and also rendered their assistance in A1 marrying A2. The specific overtact spoken to by P.W.1 in his evidence is that A3 Balakrishnan and A5 Malar offered garlands to A1 and A2 and A10 Ramesh and A9 Kannamma and A8 Nagaraj took the sacred Thali and handed over to the same to bridegroom Ramesh A2, who in turn tied the same on A1. 5. P.W.2 has improved the case of the P.W.1 by implicating A4, A6 and A7 to the marriage. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has focused the attention of this Court to Section 107 of IPC, and would contend that none of the ingredients stated under Section 107 IPC, to warrant conviction under Section 109 of IPC, for making a prime facie case against A3 to A10. But "thirdly" to Section 107 of IPC would clearly indicates that even if a person who aids intentionally to an offence deemed to have committed the offence of abatement. In lieu of overtact spoken to by P.W.1 and P.W.2 against the accused, I am of the view that the complaint is to be proceeded with against the accused except A4, A6 and A7. 6. In lieu of overtact spoken to by P.W.1 and P.W.2 against the accused, I am of the view that the complaint is to be proceeded with against the accused except A4, A6 and A7. 6. In fine, the revision is partly allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Judge in C.C.No.378 of 2005 dated 20.5.2005 is set aside in respect of A3,A5,A8 to A10 and confirmed as against A4, A6, and A7. The trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial as against A1, A2, A3, A5 and A8 to A10 and dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.