Condemnable jurisprudence has ever been most effectual subdivision of the jurisprudence which has helped in covering with most brutal of the offenses and has been at that place to protect the society from falling in the province of lawlessness. It consists of two subdivisions known as substantial jurisprudence and procedural jurisprudence. While substantial jurisprudence defines the assorted sorts of offenses and the penalty to be given to the wrongdoers, the procedural jurisprudence is intended to supply a mechanism for the enforcement of the substantial condemnable jurisprudence. In the absence of such a procedural jurisprudence, the substantial jurisprudence will be rendered worthless as cipher would be able chart out the manner of prosecuting the wrongdoers and they will be let off. So it can be concluded that both the Torahs complement each other.

The nucleus intent of condemnable process is to supply the accused a full and just test in conformity with the rules of natural justness. There are assorted stairss which should be followed in order to distribute justness and convey the guilty to the book. These include pre-trial processs such as information, apprehensions, hunt and ictuss etc ; finding legal power of constabulary and tribunals sing probe and test ; bond ; test process including awareness of offenses, induction of proceedings etc ; reappraisal processs and eventually the executing of concluding determination.

In India, the process to be followed for condemnable proceedings is determined by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It has a full subdivision dedicated to the awareness of offenses by the Magistrates[ 1 ]and has besides dealt with the limitations placed on his power of awareness sing certain offenses. Under this chapter merely, certain limitations have been placed on the Magistrate sing taking of awareness of offenses against matrimony and has been clearly defined under S. 198 and 198A of the codification. These subdivisions explain in item the individuals who are authorised to do a ailment with respect to any offense against matrimony and a Magistrate can take awareness of the offense merely if those certified individuals are the plaintiffs. He is non empowered to take suo moto awareness of these offenses unless there is a grave and sudden demand to take action.

In this essay, research worker will be discoursing about assorted the power of Magistrate to take awareness of assorted offenses and so he will be discoursing about the limitations placed on him under S. 198 & A ; 198A of the codification. Then he will be covering with to the viability of these limitations and will be analyzing if these limitations have been utile and have served their intent or have they been a hindrance for the constabulary and the victims on their manner to accomplish justness and prosecuting the culprits of assorted matrimony related offenses.

Awareness of Offenses and Scope of S. 198 & A ; 198A

After the constabulary probe has been completed and the concluding study has been submitted to a magistrate, the following measure is to originate the proceedings. The proceedings are initiated merely after that magistrate takes awareness of the offense. In general, awareness agencies taking notice of the offense though it has nowhere been defined in the codification. However, this has been settled by assorted tribunals in their determinations. Taking awareness does non intend that a formal action is needed to be taken but is considered to be taken as magistrate ponders over the inside informations of the instance so as to make up one’s mind over farther action needed to be taken for proceedings.[ 2 ]Even if there is an purpose to originate judicial proceedings or to take stairss to see whether there is any demand for originating judicial proceedings[ 3 ]and before this, tribunal should guarantee that offense charged is true. Besides, it is a settled issue that tribunal can take awareness merely one time and after that it becomes functus officio.[ 4 ]Any first category magistrate or a 2nd category magistrate, if empowered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, may take awareness of the offenses as are within their competency.[ 5 ]By and large, a tribunal of session is non competent plenty to take awareness of the offenses as tribunal of original legal power with some exclusions.[ 6 ]A magistrate can take awareness upon having a ailment of facts representing such offense, upon a police study or on having information from any individual other than a police officer[ 7 ]and he can take awareness of offenses even after scrutiny of the informants.[ 8 ]

Any individual may put the condemnable jurisprudence in gesture by registering a ailment even if he is non personally affected by the offense committed. However, certain limitations or restrictions have been imposed on the wider powers of the magistrate ‘s power to take awareness under S. 190 of the codification and these limitations have been placed under S. 195-199 of CrPC. These limitations have been placed on sound policy considerations and have been considered of import for faster disposal of instances. S. 198 ballads down an exclusion to the general regulation that a ailment can be filed by anybody even if non connected to the victim and modifies this by stating that merely aggrieved individual or individual specified under the subdivision can register a ailment associating to offenses associating to marriage. The object of this subdivision is to forestall a Magistrate of his ain gesture asking into instances of matrimony, unless the hubby or other authorised individual complains so, but one time a instance has been placed before him, a Magistrate is free to continue against any individual implicated.[ 9 ]It must be understood that this subdivision neither confer any power of awareness on the tribunal nor a right to kick on the aggrieved individual. S. 190 ( 1 ) provides for awareness and ailment referred to is complaint under S. 190 ( 1 ) . Hence, S. 198 merely imposes a prohibition on the awareness with an exclusion and nil else.[ 10 ]The word ‘complaint ‘ used under this subdivision is same as defined under S. 2 ( vitamin D ) of the codification. The indispensable ingredients of ailment are following:

( I ) the allegations are made in unwritten or composing to a magistrate so as action can be taken.

( two ) the allegations should clearly province that some individual whether known or unknown has committed the offense.

( three ) it does n’t include a police study.

The word ‘complaint ‘ has been used in ordinary sense of term i.e. look of heartache, statement of hurt suffered or grudge. Here, apart from constabularies study submitted after obtaining magistrate ‘s permission and probe thenceforth, there was ailment before magistrate and procedure was initiated after following process prescribed by the jurisprudence.[ 11 ]Though it has been expressly stated under S. 2 ( vitamin D ) of the codification that a constabulary study is non a ailment in a existent sense but where the constabulary took up the proceeding, in which the hubby appeared as a informant and in his deposition he expressed his desire to acquire the accused prosecuted and punished so it was held to be a ailment under S. 2 ( vitamin D ) , as if he made an allegation before the magistrate for asking the offense.[ 12 ]Though this was considered as an exclusion and general regulation was that the deposition of the plaintiff, made to the magistrate as a prosecution informant can non be construed as ailment within the significance of S. 2 ( vitamin D ) .[ 13 ]

The words ‘person aggrieved ‘ have a wider intension than it seems in the subdivision though it does n’t contemplate any notional or sentimental grudge. The grudge must be such which the jurisprudence can appreciate and it must be a legal grudge and non a province proratione voluntas ground.[ 14 ]It has been held by the Calcutta HC that the designation of individual aggrieved must depend upon the nature of the offense and the fortunes of each instance.[ 15 ]If on allegations made against a individual the repute of the full household is at interest, his close dealingss who are straight or indirectly affected, will be covered under the look aggrieved individual.[ 16 ]Chiefly in instance of bigamy of a married woman, the hubby is the aggrieved individual and merely he has the right to register a ailment but if the bigamy was by the married woman of a moonstruck so the male parent of the hubby was besides considered to be competent to register the ailment as it was the household ‘s repute which was at interest.[ 17 ]With respect to commissariats of S. 198A, it has been clearly mentioned that non merely the adult females who has been subjected but her dealingss can besides register a ailment against the accused and magistrate can take awareness of the ailment.

Application of the commissariats under these Sections-Use & A ; Misuse

The offenses related to matrimony hold been considered to be a affair of household and it was thought by the legislative assembly while ordaining the act that these offenses should be kept under the exclusions with respect to cosmopolitan regulation of condemnable jurisprudence that anyone can put the jurisprudence in gesture. It was thought that a alien should non be allowed to interfere in household affairs and should be kept at bay. This was based on the ancient traditions of Indian society which was ever against conveying of household affairs in the populace sphere. Under the commissariats of these subdivisions, it has been specifically stated as to who can register a ailment and who can be considered aggrieved by the offenses.

For the offenses committed under S. 494 and 495 of IPC,[ 18 ]it has been clearly stated that merely the married woman can register a ailment against the hubby or her male parent, female parent, sister, brother etc can register the ailment on her behalf. Besides, other relation can besides register the instance but with the leave of the tribunal. The hubby is the individual aggrieved in regard of an offense of bigamy committed by his married woman. Where a ailment under subdivision 494, I.P.C. is filed by the power of lawyer holder of the hubby, under subdivision 198 ( 1 ) , the tribunal is non entitled to take awareness of the offense on such a ailment.[ 19 ]In instance of bigamous matrimony by a hubby, the 2nd married woman is non the individual aggrieved within the significance of this subdivision[ 20 ]and it is merely the first married woman who can register a ailment. Though, the purposes of the legislative assembly and tribunal were baronial, they mistook the position of adult females in the society and provided them with exclusive right to prosecute. However, the above proviso is utile in prosecuting individuals alleged to hold contracted bigamous matrimonies without much hazard of invasion of aliens in the private life of the household. It has been misused by the accused hubbies in most of the instances. In a recent contention in Haryana, the Deputy Chief Minister of the State, Chander Mohan converted to Islam and married another adult female by the name of Fiza alias Anuradha Bali. In that respect, the first married woman had the right to register a ailment against her hubby and could hold easy done that. But sing the stature of her hubby and in-laws she did n’t continue with the prosecution and no instance was filed against the hubby for bigamy. Though, the hubby had committed bigamy, he was non tried in any tribunal for that offense as lone married woman had the right to register a ailment or merely she can empower person else to register a ailment in this respect. This clearly shows that these Torahs can be misused by the partners for their benefit and justness is denied due to societal fiber of our society. The same had happened with respect to the 2nd matrimony of Dharmender with Hema Malini. There is a desperate demand to amend this jurisprudence and tribunals should be allowed to take suo moto awareness of such offenses so as to convey the guilty to the book.

For the offenses under S. 497 and 498 of IPC,[ 21 ]it has been clearly stated that hubby of the adult females is the merely aggrieved individual and in his absence, the individual whose attention the adult female was at the clip of committee of offense, can register a ailment on hubby ‘s behalf but merely after obtaining leave from the tribunal.[ 22 ]The limitation in the subdivision is non intended to afford unsusceptibility to the wrongdoer, but to forestall a individual unconnected with the adult female from giving promotion to a affair which neither the hubby nor the defender is willing to foment. However, uncertainties have been raised on the limitation under S. 198 ( 2 ) and it has been considered to be unconstitutional as hubby of fornicatress is given right to prosecute fornicator, married woman of fornicator is non given the right. In V Revathi v. Union of India,[ 23 ]the Supreme Court held that subdivision 497, I.P.C. , is so designed that a hubby can non prosecute the married woman for sullying the holiness of the marital tie by perpetrating criminal conversation. Thus the jurisprudence permits neither the hubby of piquing married woman to prosecute his married woman nor does the jurisprudence permit the married woman to prosecute the offending hubby for being unpatriotic to her. Thus both hubby and married woman are disabled from striking each other with the arm of condemnable jurisprudence. This proviso of S. 198 ( 2 ) has been of great significance and attempts to convey in harmoniousness in the relationship by allowing them to “ do up ” or “ interrupt up ” the marital tie instead than to drag each other to the condemnable tribunal. By this, they can either unrecorded together or seek divorce peacefully without any scores. By this kids are saved from the injury of one of their parents being jailed by the other. By this proviso, the community punishes the ‘outsider ‘ who breaks into the marital place and occasions the misdemeanor of holiness of the marital place by developing an illicit relationship with one of the partner topic to the rider that the mistaking ‘man ‘ can merely be punished and non the mistaking adult female. There is no favoritism based on sex. While the foreigner who violates the holiness of the marital place is punished a rider has been added that if the foreigner is a adult female she is non punished. There is therefore rearward favoritism in “ favour ” of the adult female instead than “ against ” her. Thus subdivision 198 ( 2 ) is non vulnerable to the charge of hostile favoritism against a adult female. A hubby is non permitted because the married woman is non treated an wrongdoer in the oculus of the jurisprudence. The married woman is non permitted as subdivision 198 ( 1 ) read with subdivision 198 ( 2 ) does non allow her to make so. In the ultimate analysis the jurisprudence has meted out even handed justness to both of them in the affair of prosecuting each other or procuring the captivity of each other.[ 24 ]It has been held by the tribunal that a hubby can non convict an accused under S. 498 IPC when he had filed a instance under S. 366 of IPC without even lodging a ailment under the peculiar subdivision[ 25 ]but if a hubby who was examined as a informant stated that he wished the accused to be prosecuted for criminal conversation so tribunal can continue with that as it is considered to be complaint under S. 2 ( vitamin D ) .[ 26 ]Though, it has been explained decently but the rider of salvaging adult females in instance of criminal conversation is unwanted as she is saved even after being a spouse to the offense.

Under S. 198 ( 6 ) of the codification, a clip bound of one twelvemonth is prescribed for awareness of sexual intercourse by a adult male with his ain married woman who is under 15 old ages of age. This proviso seems to see incidents of matrimonial misbehavior with less cogency within specified bounds. Sing the bing conditions societal conditions and the economic dependance of adult females, it appears hard that a married woman would lodge a ailment against her hubby for such an offense. The legislative assembly should take a measure in this way and should increase the clip bound for registering the instances so that a adult female can register a instance when she comes to cognize about her rights. As we know that adult females are still subjected to subjugation and are therefore afraid to convey such an offense in the public infinite and besides, she is incognizant of her human rights. These sorts of offenses are committed all over the state, peculiarly in Rajasthan where kid matrimonies are still prevailing but adult females are non able to kick against this. By the clip they understand their rights, one twelvemonth restriction period gets over and they are non able to prosecute their hubbies for such a flagitious offense. Under S. 198 A, which was inserted by an amendment in 1983, all the relations of the married woman specified there can register a ailment against hubby or his household members for hassling a married adult female and handling her with inhuman treatment.


It can be concluded that these limitations were put in topographic point so as to keep the self-respect of affected households and besides to work out the affairs within the household members. Had everyone been allowed to register a ailment, so it would hold resulted in pandemonium in the households and tonss of instances would hold been registered which might be out of malice to demo that household in bad reputation. Though magistrate can take awareness of the ailment filed by the individuals as mentioned under this subdivision, he can besides allow other individual ‘s leave to register a ailment. By these subdivisions, merely the most affected individuals are given right to register a ailment as they are considered to be aggrieved at most. Though the thought of legislative assembly was baronial while ordaining the statute law, there seems to be some agape holes in the codification, largely with respect to redresss asserted to adult females, by which many hubbies have been set free. It is to be understood that the object of CrPC is non allow an accused spell but to penalize him for his workss. So the authorities must present some amendment so as to do these commissariats effectual.