JUDGMENT S.D. Khare, J. - This is an appeal directed against an order dated 30-11-1964, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi, allowing the appeal of the present Respondents and acquitting them of the charge u/s 500 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated was that the present Respondents, namely, Shanker, Sita Ram and Babban had defamed Smt. Lallu Devi, sister of the complainant Hira Lal on 27-5-1963 at about 5.00 p.m. at village Mandarwa within police Circle Bhellupur by saying that Smt. Lallu Devi had eloped with one Sita Ram Bhar. It was further alleged that there had been similar statements by them in the court of Sri K.P. Singh and Sri R.C. Lal Srivastava and that they had also repeated the same thereafter in the vicinity, knowing it well that whatever they were saying was wrong. The magistrate, who tried the case, held that the charge was established against the three Respondents and he convicted them u/s 500 of the IPC and sentenced them each to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge held that Hira Lal, who was a brother of Smt. Lallu Devi, the main person defamed, was not a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, was not entitled to maintain the complaint. On these findings he allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. 3. The only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Hira Lal, the complainant, could, in the circumstances of the case, be considered to be a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The findings recorded by the appellate court based on the statements made by the complainant himself and Smt. Lallu Devi, are that Smt. Lallu Devi is living quite independently for the last 12 years and is employed as a servant with a Bengali family in the city of Varanasi and is not living under the protection of her father or brother in which circumstances Hira Lal, the brother of Smt. Lallu Devi, cannot be considered to be a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when imputation of unchastity was made against his sister. 5. 5. It has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that Hira Lal, the complainant, should be considered to be a "person aggrieved" because it has come in evidence that Smt. Lallu Devi has not severed her connections with her father's family altogether and occasionally visits her father and brother. In our opinion, the fact that Smt. Lallu Devi occasionally visither father and brother residing at a place different from the place of her employment will not make Hira Lal a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: No court shall take cognizance of an offence falling u/Ch. XtX or Ch. XXI of the IPC or Under Sections 493 to 496 (both inclusive) of the same Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offence;.... It is no doubt abundantly clear that there may be cases where only one person is not aggrieved by an act of defamation. The law provides that "some person", that is to say, any person aggrieved by sue offence, may lodge the complaint. Where a sister is living under the protection of her brother and any imputation is made against the character of the sister the good name of the brother is also bound to be involved and he has to suffer the evil consequences of the defamation made. Then it can be said that the brother is also a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the facts of the present case are entirely different. Here it is clear from the evidence on record that Smt. Lallu Devi has been living separate from her brother for the last 11 or 12 years in connection with her employment at an altogether different place and is merely a casual visitor to the house of her brother. In such circumstances the brother cannot be said to be a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. There is no decision of Allahabad High Court on this point. The leading case on the point is the Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Chotalal Lallubhai v. Nathabhai Bechar ILR 25 Bom 151. 6. There is no decision of Allahabad High Court on this point. The leading case on the point is the Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Chotalal Lallubhai v. Nathabhai Bechar ILR 25 Bom 151. The question which the learned Judges posed was: "Is, then, an imputation of unchastity in his wife a legal grievance to a husband?" and the answer given by them was: "...a priori it clearly is, though there, no doubt, may be special circumstances under which it would not be. Whether or not such special circumstances exist, is a question for determination on the facts of each case as it arises." It was further observed that imputations regarding the enticing away of a married woman and similar allegations "are obviously of a private character and hence the limit on the person by whom initiation of proceedings is allowed, for it would be eminently undesirable that any one should have in his power to drag into a court of justice offences of this sort and that I take to be mischief against which it is sought to guard Reliance was placed on the abovementioned Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sampuran Singh Vs. The State, AIR 1953 P&H 82 and it was held that: Where unchastity is imputed to a wife, who has left the protection of her husband and is living separately by herself, her father is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of the section and his complaint u/s 500, IPC, is not maintainable. The same view was taken in the case of Ram Dhani v. Swami Din AIR 1953 VP 9 and it was held that: Where a woman comes to reside with her brother as a result of a domestic quarrel with her husband and she is not under the brother's guardianship nor is he under any responsibility to take care of her good name, a court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint made by the brother against his sister's husband, who has imputed unchastity to her. We respectfully agree with the view taken in the three cases noted above. The learned Sessions Judge has mentioned in his judgment the case of Dwijendra Nath Talukdar and Anr. We respectfully agree with the view taken in the three cases noted above. The learned Sessions Judge has mentioned in his judgment the case of Dwijendra Nath Talukdar and Anr. v. Mohan Lal Pramanik AIR 1953 Cal 546 as a case favouring the contention of the present Appellant but very much differing on facts and, therefore, distinguishable. We have not been able to lay our hands on that case because the reference as given in the judgment is incorrect and the Learned Counsel for the Appellant too could not give a correct reference. Suffice it to say that each case depends upon its own facts for the determination of the question whether or not the complainant is a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. There is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed.