JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by a learned First Class Magistrate, Sambalpur, acquitting the Respondent of a charge u/s 500, Indian Penal Code. 2. The Appellant filed a petition of complaint on 16-9-1966 alleging the commission of an offence punishable u/s 500, Indian Penal Code by the Respondent. Most of the allegations complained of in the said petition of complaint related to the Appellant's wife. Translated into English, the allegations can be stated thus: The complainant is an outcaste, for his wife had eloped with a Kisan boy and yet the complainant is living with her as husband and wife. Cognizance was taken u/s 500, Indian Penal Code by the learned S.D.M. on 16-9-1966. A regular trial followed. The learned Magistrate ultimately held that a complaint of this type was not maintainable at the instance of the husband in view of the provisions u/s 198, Code of Criminal Procedure. The reasonings given by the learned Magistrate in his own words are thus: The charge which has been framed in this case reads that the reputation of both complainant and his wife have been damaged and the accused had the intention to cause such damage. Since Section 500 comes under Chapter XXI of Indian Penal Code, such offences are governed u/s 198 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of taking cognizance. It is provided in Section 198, Code of Criminal Procedure that where the aggrieved is a woman and who according to custom should not be compelled to appear in public then some other person may with the leave of the Court make a complaint on her behalf. In this particular case, the husband has brought the complaint for himself and as (sic) as his wife but no leave of the Court has been obtained to make such complaint for the wife. No doubt, the complainant can bring a case independently without joining his wife as aggrieved in the complaint petition, but in a case where the complainant has stated in his petition of complaint that his wife is also an aggrieved then the offence involved which emanates out of the same facts and Borne conduct of the accused give rise to a conjoint character of the offence where leave of the Court is necessary to be obtained prior to the filing of the complaint. In this view of the matter without examining the merits of the case he held, For this legal defect in bringing the case against the accused, I bold that the prosecution is not valid against the accused. Accordingly, I do not want to go into the facts of the case for giving findings. 3. Mr. R.C. Misra for the complainant-Appellant contends that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is clearly contrary to law. Section 198, Code of Criminal Procedure reads to the following effect: No Court shall take cognizance of an offence falling under Chapter XIX or Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code or under Sections 493 to 496 (both inclusive) of the same Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offence:.... Admittedly the offence punishable u/s 500, Indian Penal Code is under Chapter XXI and, therefore, the provisions of Section 198, Code of Criminal Procedure would apply to the present section. But the point turns upon a finding as to whether the husband can be said to be an aggrieved person when imputation touching the character of the wife is made. In the present case the allegations are against both. The complainant is said to be an outcaste and the reason for it is given as his living with his wife even though she had run away with a Kisan boy. 4. There seems to be consensus of judicial opinion that in a case where the wife is defamed particularly touching upon her character, the husband is the aggrieved person. This is more or less on the basis that by marital relationship the husband and the wife have such a status in the society that defamation against one necessarily has its effect on the other. This aspect of the matter came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of five learned Judges including the Chief Justice, in Chhotalal v. Nathabhai ILR 25 Bom. 151 (F.B.). This aspect of the matter came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of five learned Judges including the Chief Justice, in Chhotalal v. Nathabhai ILR 25 Bom. 151 (F.B.). Jenkins, C.J. with whom 3 other learned Judges agreed, on an examination of this question, stated: Now it does not appear to me that a husband complaining of an imputation of unchastity on his wife's part would prima facie come within the mischief and I think one is entitled to approach the question in the light of this consideration, and to ask whether there is anything in the expression 'some person aggrieved by such offence that excludes him from being a competent complainant. I am unable to and in the Code any limitation of the sense in which the' word 'aggrieved' is used. Nor is there any indication of the kind of grievance which may qualify a man to complain. Still I think it must be conceded that any fanciful or sentimental grievance would not suffice; it must be such a grievance as the law can appreciate; it must be what has been termed a legal grievance and not a state pro ratione voluntas reason. Is, then, an imputation of unchastity in his wife a legal grievance to a husband? It appears to me that 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. My reason for saying that such an imputation is prima facie a legal grievance to the husband is this: it is grievance capable of recognition by a Court of justice; for it is one that will entitle him to recover such special damages as may have resulted to him from it; and as has been said, the reputation of a husband is so intimately connected with that of his wife, that he has always been allowed to sue whenever he has received damage just as though the words had been spoken of himself. 'Moreover', common experience of life shows that a husband under ordinary circumstances suffers by the evil reputation of his wife. Obviously, then, the grievance to the husband cannot be described as merely sentimental. 'Moreover', common experience of life shows that a husband under ordinary circumstances suffers by the evil reputation of his wife. Obviously, then, the grievance to the husband cannot be described as merely sentimental. It seems to me impossible to limit the scope of the expression 'some person aggrieved' to those by whom an offence may u/s 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be compounded. If that were the true view, then it is only the person defamed who can complain. But in that case Explanation I to Section 499 of the Indian' Penal Code (Act XLV of 1800), becomes a dead letter. That explanation makes the defamation of a deceased person an offence; but if it is only the person defamed who can complain, it follows that there is no one who can initiate proceedings, and that I cannot suppose was ever intended, or can be the actual result of Section 198. Examining this aspect of the matter Sen, J. in Biswanath Bubns v. The King AIR 1949 Cal. 567 stated: A person may be defamed by making scurrilous attacks upon the character of his wife, without alleging anything personally against him. A similar view has also been taken by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Jokhai and Another Vs. The State It was stated: In a case where a false imputation of unchastity is made against the daughter-in-law who is living with her father-in-law, the reputation of the entire family suffers, and if husband of the woman is absent, the father-in-law is an equally aggrieved person within the meaning of the expression in Section 198, Code of Criminal Procedure, and as such he is entitled to initiate proceedings u/s 500 of the Penal Code. In Mrs. Pat Sharpe v. Dwijendra Nath 1964 (1) Crl.L.J. 367 it has been stated. So far as an offence of defamation is concerned tile complaint may be made not only by the persons defamed but by some person aggrieved by such defamation. In Mrs. Pat Sharpe v. Dwijendra Nath 1964 (1) Crl.L.J. 367 it has been stated. So far as an offence of defamation is concerned tile complaint may be made not only by the persons defamed but by some person aggrieved by such defamation. Where the person defamed was Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, his nephew was 'a person aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such even though it be assumed that Netaji was alive at the time of the publication of the article in question the complaint made by the nephew was competent and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on the basis of this complaint was legal. In another case reported in Gahru Ram Ram Kumar Vs. Rambaran Thakuri and Another where the imputation was that the complainant's wife was a witch and practised witchcraft and destroyed the crops of the accused persons, it was held that it was an imputation affecting the complainant's husband and a complaint at his instance was found to be in order and in conformity with the requirements of Section 198, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Madras and the Mysore High Courts have also taken a similar view. 5. In view of this state of the law I am of the definite view that the learned Magistrate was clearly wrong in his approach to the matter. The present complaint at the instance of the Appellant was maintainable in law and was in order. In the circumstances the judgment of the learned Magistrate must be vacated and the order of acquittal set aside. The case will now go back to the learned S.D.M. of Sambalpur who would take steps to have it disposed of by a competent Court at an early, date. Parties will not be entitled to adduce any further evidence. They would he entitled however to a hearing before the new Magistrate disposes of the case. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. Final Result : Allowed