In Re: Pedda Anjinigadu

John Wallis, C.J.—It is expressly provided by Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that no Court shall take cognizance of an

offence u/s 497 or Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by the husband, and a conviction under these sections is

bad in the absence of something which amounts to a complaint by the husband of one of the offences specified in the section. Therefore, on a

complaint of rape by the husband a conviction for adultery or kidnapping cannot be supported. Complaint is defined in Section 4(h) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure as the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person,

whether known or unknown, has committed an offence,"" I agree with Coutts. Trotter, J,, that the examination of the complainant by a Magistrate

who has taken cognisance of the complaint u/s 200 cannot be regarded as part of the complaint. The only question that remains is whether the

complaint, as it stands, contains a sufficient allegation of the commission of an offence u/s 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The same particularity

cannot be required in a complaint as in a charge, especially when it is made by an uneducated person. Now the present complaint, as re translated

for me, contains allegations by the husband that the accused won over his wife who had recently attained puberty, enticed her away, and refused to

give her back. It also states that she did not go of her own accord, which points to seduction, and prays for the restoration of the wife as well as

the jewels. The jewels no doubt figure more largely in the complaint than the wife, but I attribute this to the complainant''s being an ignorant man

and not knowing how to express himself, Shyloak bemoaning the loss of his ducats and his daughter did not really mean to put the two losses on

the same footing. Still less did the complainant, in my opinion, intend to complain only of the loss of the jewels, ignoring the obvious injury done to

him as a husband by the action of the accused. It has also been brought to my notice that it is very usual in complaints for, an offence u/s 498 to

add a charge of theft both with a view to obtaining a search warrant and a heavier sentence.

I think these allegations sufficiently convey that the accused enticed away the complainant''s young wife with a view of illicit inter, course, and

that the complaint should not be read as relating merely to a theft of the jewels. For these reasons I confirm the conviction.