1964 (12) TMI 76 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding locus standi to file a complaint for the offence of bigamy.
- Whether a relative can file a complaint on behalf of the deceased wife after her death.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the Second Additional Sessions Judge doubted the correctness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in a case involving a complaint of bigamy.

2. The complainant, who was the elder brother of the deceased wife of the accused, filed a complaint alleging bigamy after the death of his sister. The accused challenged the maintainability of the complaint, questioning the complainant's locus standi under Section 198 of the CrPC.

3. The key issue was whether the brother of the deceased wife had the legal standing to file a complaint for the offence of bigamy under Section 198 of the CrPC.

4. Section 198 of the CrPC specifies that only a person aggrieved by the offence can file a complaint, with provisions for representation in certain circumstances.

5. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 198 and highlighted that when the offence of bigamy is committed by the husband, the wife is considered the aggrieved party, and any relative specified in the explanation to the section can file a complaint on her behalf.

6. It was emphasized that the authority to file a complaint on behalf of the wife ceases to exist upon her death, as the relative acts as an agent of the wife, and the agency terminates with the death of the principal.

7. The court referred to legal principles and precedents to establish that acting 'on behalf of' implies an agency relationship, which ceases upon the death of the principal.

8. The court rejected the argument that proceedings initiated before the death of the complainant should continue, emphasizing that the authority to file a complaint under Section 198 can only be exercised when the aggrieved party is alive.

9. Ultimately, the court accepted the reference, set aside the Magistrate's order, and dismissed the complaint as not being cognizable under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.