Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The sole petitioner has been convicted under Sec. 498, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arrah by judgment and order dated 13-6-1988. The said conviction and sentence has been upheld by the appellate Court by the judgment and order dated 13-2-1989. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Harihar Ram. PW 4 was married with Dewanti Devi. Both were residing with four children in the campus of Maharaja College, Arrah, where the informant was employed as a peon. He came to know from Amamath Mahto that on 13-3-1985 at 12.00 noon during his absence the petitioner enticed away his wife with ornaments and cash. He also forcibly took away one of the sons of the informant. The informant, later on, came to know that his wife was living with the petitioner at Durgapur. 3. Thereafter he lodged a written report before the Officer-in-charge. Arrah Nawada P.S., Ext. 1, on the basis of which a formal FIR under Secs. 366 and 376, IPC was drawn and the police submitted a final report. The learned Magistrate differed with the opinion of the police and by order dated 28-6-1986 took cognizance under Sec. 498, IPC and transferred the case for trial. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined five witnesses, out of whom PW 5 Bhuneshwar Singh is a formal witness who has proved the FIR. PW 3 Rakesh Kumar, son of the informant, has been tendered. PW 1 Ram Sakhi Devi. mother-in-law of the informant (mother of Dewanti Devi), Rajesh Kumar, son of the informant, PW 2 and PW 4, the informant, supported the prosecution case and both the Courts have accepted their evidence and have convicted the petitioner under Sec. 498, IPC as stated above, hence the present revision application. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of conviction and sentence is vitiatea in law for the reason that in this case the requirement of Sec. 198. Cr. P.C. has not been followed inasmuch as cognizance has been taken on the basis of a police report and not on the basis of the complaint made by the aggrieved person-husband before the Magistrate. 5. The offence under Sec. 498, IPC falls under Chapter XX of the Penal Code and Sec. 198, contains a provision regarding prosecution for offence against marriage. Sub-sec. 5. The offence under Sec. 498, IPC falls under Chapter XX of the Penal Code and Sec. 198, contains a provision regarding prosecution for offence against marriage. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 198, Cr PC, provides that no Court shall take cognizance of defence punishable under Chapter XX of the Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 198, Cr P.C. provides that no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under Sec. 497 or 498 of the Penal Code. However, in proviso to Sub-sec. (2), it is stated that in absence of the husband some person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed may make a complaint on behalf of the husband with the leave of the Court. Thus, it is clear that the cognizance can be taken to the offence under Sec. 408 P.C. only upon a complaint made by the husband or by any person as mentioned in proviso to Sub-sec. (2) to Sec. 198, Cr. P.C. 6. The question for determination is whether the word complaint occurring in Sec. 198, Cr. PC has to be given an ordinary meaning or it should be treated as complaint as defined under Sec. 2(d), Cr. PC. If the word complaint is given an ordinary meaning in the sense that complaint means an expression of grief or injury by the husband before the police or the Magistrate, in that case even filing of FIR by the husband would be sufficient compliance of Sec. 198, Cr. P.C. However, if the word complaint used in Sec. 198, Cr. PC, refers to the complaint as defined under Sec. 2(d), Cr. PC, in that situation, the case can only proceed on the basis of the complaint filed by the aggrieved person before the Magistrate and in no other manner. 7. Sec. 498 of the Penal Code has been enacted to protect the right of the husband. The gist of the offence under Sec. 498, IPC, is the derivation of the husband of the custody and, control of his wife. The offence under Sec. 498, IPC is not cognizable meaning thereby that the police cannot arrest any person without a warrant from a Magistrate. The gist of the offence under Sec. 498, IPC, is the derivation of the husband of the custody and, control of his wife. The offence under Sec. 498, IPC is not cognizable meaning thereby that the police cannot arrest any person without a warrant from a Magistrate. The State is the custodian of the law and order and the general rule is that any person can put the criminal law in motion. Sec. 198. Cr. P.C. creates an exception to the general rule. It bars the jurisdiction of the Magistrate or a Court to take cognizance in the cases falling under Chapter XX of the Penal Code except in the manner provided under the said section. It requires a complaint by the person aggrieved. To me it appears 1 hat the word complaint under Sec. 198 of the Code means the complaint as defined under Sec. 2(d) of the Code which means an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his raking action under this Code that some person has committed an offence but does not include a police report. 8. In the case of Tara Prasad Laha V/s. Emperor, the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that word complaint as used in Sec. 198, is limited to the complaint as defined in Sec. 4(h) of 1898. Code which corresponds to 2(d) of the present Code and accordingly set aside the conviction on the ground that the case proceeded on the basis of information given to the police which cannot be regarded as a complaint as defined under the Code. The same view has been taken by the Punjab Chief Court in the case of Bhana V/s. Emperor, by Madras High Court in the case of Arumuga Mudaliar and another V/s. Emperor, and by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Tej Singh V/s. State, I find myself in agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid cases and hold that complaint occurring in Sec. 198. Cr. PC means complaint as defined in Sec. 2(d) of the code meaning thereby that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 498 IPC. only on the basis of a complaint lodged before the Magistrate by aggrieved person and an information to the police by the aggrieved person for the offence under Sec. 498. IPC. Cr. PC means complaint as defined in Sec. 2(d) of the code meaning thereby that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 498 IPC. only on the basis of a complaint lodged before the Magistrate by aggrieved person and an information to the police by the aggrieved person for the offence under Sec. 498. IPC. is not a complaint as mentioned in Sec. 198. Cr. PC. 9. In the present case admittedly no complaint was filed before the Magistrate. The matter was reported to the police and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after differing with the report of the police took cognizance. Thus, the mandatory requirement of Sec. 198. Cr. P.C. regarding filing of the complaint by the aggrieved has not been complied with in this case. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is vitiated in law. 10. In the result, this application is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the bail bonds.