ORDER M. M. Husain, J. -This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of a case pending against the petitioners under Section 498, I. P. C. in the Court of a Special Magistrate at Lucknow. The said learned Magistrate has been impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in the present petition which was not at all necessary. 2. The complainant Abdul Majid, who is opposite party No. 1 is the father of one Abdul Aziz. He filed the impugned complaint in the Court of the Magistrate concerned on 19-4-1978 with the allegation that Smt. Sammo was the legally wedded wife of Abdul Aziz and was the daughter of petitioner No. l Abdul Aziz, son of Nazir, whose wife Qamar Jehan is petitioner No. 2. The other two petitioners Rafiq and Chhotey Bhaiya are the sons of petitioner No. 1. The complainant alleged that in the absence of his son the petitioners had enticed away Smt. Sammo and were concealing and detaining her for illicit purposes. 3. The petitioners took up a technical plea before the learned Magistrate to the effect that under Section 198 (1), Cr.P.C. (new) the person competent to file the complaint in question was complainants son Abdul Aziz and not Abdul Majid. This objection was repelled by the learned Magistrate with the objection that in the absence of his son the complainant Abdul Majid was legally competent to fie the said complaint. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even if complainants son was not available and the complainant was compelled to file the present complaint, he ought to have obtained leave of the Court for that purpose. This argument carries every force. 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 198, Cr. P. C. (new) lays down that no Court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1890) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. This argument carries every force. 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 198, Cr. P. C. (new) lays down that no Court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1890) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Sub-section (2) of that section runs as follows:- "For the purposes of sub-section (1) no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under Sections 497 or 498 of the said Code; Provided that in the absence of the husband some person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed made, with the leave of the Court, made complaint on his behalf." The above sub-section makes it clear that in the normal course husband of the woman concerned was competent to file a complaint under Section 498, I. P. C. but in his absence any other person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time of the commission of the offence can also file a complaint 'with the leave of the Court. 6. In Ram Prasad v. State (1951 All LJ 214) a learned single Judge of this Court held that where a complaint has been admitted by the Court and cognisance taken, it could be inferred that the paired leave had been granted by the Court orally. This observation can be of no avail to the complainant in the present case, because here the learned Magistrate, even in the impugned order, has not observed that he had granted the required leave. On the other hand, he has observed that Abdul Majid was competent to file the complaint in the absence of his son. This was a highly erroneous approach of the learned Magistrate. Abdul Majid could not file the present complaint without the leave of the Court and the learned Magistrate has wrongly held that the same was not called for. I am firmly of opinion that Abdul Maijid could not file the present complaint without obtaining leave of the Court as contemplated by the proviso attached to sub-section (2) of Section 198, Cr. P. C. That leave was never granted by the learned Magistrate. The present complaint has, therefore, been filed by a person not authorised by law to file it. P. C. That leave was never granted by the learned Magistrate. The present complaint has, therefore, been filed by a person not authorised by law to file it. Taking cognisance of the offence by the Magistrate concerned on the basis of that complaint is nothing but a wrong assumption of jurisdiction. The impugned proceedings of the case thus amount to an abuse of the process of Court. 7. Consequently I allow this petition and quash the proceedings of Case No. 687 of 1978 (Abdul Majid v. Abdul Aziz and others) pending against the petitioners in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on the basis of the impugned complaint.