Order This petition by the accused is directed against the order dated 20th September, 1975 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1975, framing a charge for an offence punishable under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, or in the alternative under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The respondent is the wife of one Mallappa Bangi. She filed a complaint against her father, who was A-2 in the complaint, as also against one Parappa Sidram Karlatti, who is the petitioner herein. The said complaint was lodged on 18th March, 1975 before the Magistrate and the brief facts revealed are as follows: 3. A-2 is the father of the complainant and A-1 is a teacher in a primary school, who is a very good friend of A-2. A-1 is a resident of Yelavaratti and as a teacher he is residing in that village for the last 7 to 8 years prior to the date of the complaint. He was negligent in his teaching work and always used to spend his time in resorting to bad ways. He is also a rich man owning garden lands. The complainant was married to one Mallappa Bangi of Yelparatti, when she was very young, who was her close relative and her husband is suffering from tuberculosis for the last 25 years and he is staying in the house of his father-in-law at Yelparatti. A-2 instructed the complainant-her daughter-that she should not have any marital relationship with her husband in view of his disease and accordingly she did not lead a marital life with her husband, A-1 who was a very close friend of A-2 used to come to the house of A-2 every day and in the beginning he used to see the complainant and tease her. This was informed by her to her father, but he (A-2) did not take any action or warn A-1. After sometime A-1 developed illicit intimacy with the complainant and took her away to his garden house and kept her there. A-1 promised the complainant that he would see that she obtain divorce from her ailing husband. She believed the words of A-1 and because of her illicit intimacy with A-1, she became pregnant. After sometime A-1 developed illicit intimacy with the complainant and took her away to his garden house and kept her there. A-1 promised the complainant that he would see that she obtain divorce from her ailing husband. She believed the words of A-1 and because of her illicit intimacy with A-1, she became pregnant. After 3 or 4 months there was an abortion and thereafter she asked A-1 to marry her, but A-1 stated that he had illicit intimacy with so many other women and therefore it does not mean that he should marry her. Though the complainant came back to her father's house, A-1 did not allow her to stay in her father's house. On the aforesaid averments, the complainant stated that A-1, with the connivance of A-2, had illicit intimacy with her; that she was kept in the garden house by A-1; that she became pregnant through A-1; that A-1 gave false hopes that he would marry her and that thereafter left her away and therefore he (A-1) has committed offences punishable under sections 366, 417 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. She also averred that A-2, who is no other than her father, also committed an offence punishable under section 372 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of her complaint she also mentioned the names of six witnesses, who are said to be conversent with the facts alleged in the complaint. The said complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raibag in C.C.No. 75 of 1975, on his file. 4. The complainant was examined as P.W.1 on oath and her sworn statement was recorded and thereafter her witnesses, namely (i) Dhanapal, (ii) Laxman, (iii) Balppa, (iv) Ramappa, (v) Shidrama, and ( vi)Basavaraj were examined on oath under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the learned Magistrate after finding that the offences alleged are one that could be tried by the Court of Session, committed the case for being tried by the Sessions Judge at Belgaum. The Sessions Judge after receipt of the papers registered a case in S.C. No. 80 of 1975 on his file and after perusing the papers proceeded to frame a charge against A-1 only for an offence punishable under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, or in. the alternative for an offence punishable under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. 5. the alternative for an offence punishable under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of framing the charge, A-1 has come up with this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer that the charge and the proceedings against him be quashed. 6. Sri B.V. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Sessions Judge has erred in framing a charge against A-1 tor an offence punishable under section 366 or in the alternative under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the averments and also the sworn statements of the witnesses recorded by the Magistrate. He further contended that even if the allegations in the complaint, the sworn statements of the complainant and those of the witnesses, are taken at their face value, it would not spell out an offence punishable under section 366 or in the alternative under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, and at best it may amount to an offence punishable either under section 497 or under section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, or both, in which case, for such offences punishable under Chapter 20 of the Indian Penal Code, section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is attracted. He also submitted that if the allegations spell out an offence punishable either under section 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code, or both, then the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and sub- sections (1) and (2) of section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code is attracted under which a person aggrieved by the said offence has to lodge the complaint. His further submission was that the offences under section 366 or366-A are so intermingled with section 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, it is not possible to separate the trial in respect of some of the offences which do not attract the provisions of section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. His further submission was that the offences under section 366 or366-A are so intermingled with section 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, it is not possible to separate the trial in respect of some of the offences which do not attract the provisions of section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also submitted that the facts disclose an offence punishable either under section 497 or under section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, or both, the section attracted is section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code and just to avoid the provisions of section 198 , the complainant should not be allowed or resorting to devices or camouflages to bring the offence under section 366 or366-A of the Indian Penal Code. Elaborating this, he submitted whether there is an evasion of section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or not, the test is to see whether the facts disclose primarily and essentially an offence for which a complaint by the aggrieved person is necessary under section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code; on the other hand, the learned Advocate for the complainant Sri Raya Reddy, submitted that the facts, the averments in the complaint and the statements on oath of the complainant and her witnesses clearly make out an offence under section 366 or366-A of the Indian Penal Code, and not an offence under section 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, he submitted that the charge framed against the accused is in confirmity with law. 7. It is true that if the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is one falling either under section 497 or under section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, then a complaint by the aggrieved party is a must and in the absence of which no Court could take cognizance of the said complaint. Therefore, it is necessary to see whether the allegations made in the complaint and the sworn statements of the complainant and her witnesses would constitute an offence either under section 366 or under section 366-A or an offence under section 497 or under section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, it is also necessary to see whether the facts are so intermingled and the ingredients are overlapping with each other though it is not possible to make out which of the offence or offences the accused have committed. Further, it is also necessary to see whether the facts are so intermingled and the ingredients are overlapping with each other though it is not possible to make out which of the offence or offences the accused have committed. The ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, among other ingredients, there must be kidnapping or abduction as defined in section 362 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, two essential ingredients, namely, (i) forcible compulsion or inducement by deceitful means, and (ii) the object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going’ of a person from any place. These are the two ingredients absolutely necessary to constitute an offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, along with the other ingredients indicated in section 361. Further, section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, applies to cases where at the time of abduction the woman has no intention of marriage or illicit intercourse at the time when the abduction takes place, but it is evident that the intention of the abductor was to compel her afterwards to marry any person against her will or to force or seduce her afterwards to illicit intercourse; whereas to constitute an offence under section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of compulsion or deceit need not be there and further section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, applies to cases where the object of taking or enticing is that the woman may have illicit intercourse with some other person even though as generally happens she is quite aware of the purpose for which she is quitting her husband, and is an assenting party to it. Applying these salient features which differentiate the offences under the two aforesaid categories to the averments in the complaint as also the sworn statements,. it is to be seen what offences are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner herein. The complainant has stated that her husband was living in her father's house alone and he was suffering from tuberculosis for the last 25 years and that she was advised by her father not to have any kind of marital relationship with her husband. The complainant has stated that her husband was living in her father's house alone and he was suffering from tuberculosis for the last 25 years and that she was advised by her father not to have any kind of marital relationship with her husband. Accordingly, she abstained from having any sort of marital relationship with her husband and on the other hand A-1, the petitioner, who was a very good friend of her father used to come to their house and he became friendly with her and later began to have illicit intercourse with her. She also became pregnant and he took her and kept her in his (A-1's) garden house, which was close by. There she became pregnant and after the loss of pregnancy, she requested him to marry her, but he refused to do so and drove her away from his garden house. He also managed to see that even her father did not take her into his (A-2) house. This is the uniform version given by the complainant as also the witnesses examined in support of her case. It is clear that there was absolutely no compulsion or deciet practised on her by the accused. In other words, they were living friendly and he took her to his garden house and were leading a free and happy life. There is not even a whisper of compulsion or force or any deceitful means employed by the accused on her to leave the house, though she has stated that he had promised that he would get a divorce from her husband. This does not mean to any deceit or inducement practised by the accused to make her leave the house of her husband because even prior to that in the house of her father itself she was having illicit intimacy with A-1 and when he took her to his garden house she did not protest but continued to live there carrying on her illicit relationship with A-1 for a long time, in which case, it cannot be said that the petitioner (A-1) employed any deceitful means or induced her to leave her house and to go with him. Further, at the time of leaving her house, she has no intention of marriage. Further, at the time of leaving her house, she has no intention of marriage. It is also clear from her case that A-1 at no point of time compelled her to marry, but on the other hand it was the complainant herself, who began to compel A-1 to marry her and having lived with him for a long time she requested A-1 to marry her as promised and when he refused to do so she has come out with his theory of an offence punishable either under section 366 or under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is therefore clear that the complainant has failed to make out a case against A-1 for either an offence under section 366 or under section 366-A by her own saying and as rightly contended by Sri Deshpande the offences may at best fall either under section 497 or under section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, in which case a complaint by the aggrieved party is absolutely necessary and the Court is debarred from taking congnizance of the aforesaid offences in the absence of a complaint by the aggrieved party as contemplated under section 198 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under sub- section (2) of section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for the purpose of sub- section (1) no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable either under section 497 of498 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court would quash proceedings if the allegations even when accepted as true do not established offence at all and this is a case which falls under the said category. The continuance of such proceedings against the accused would certainly amount to the abuse of the process of Court and in the interest of justice the charges so framed by the learned Sessions Judge on the materials before him, are liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed and the charges framed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, under section 366 or in the alternative under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, against A-1, the petitioner herein, in S.C. No. 80 of 1975, are hereby quashed. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.