Madras High Court
Anantha Goundan And Anr. vs King-Emperor on 7 January, 1904
Equivalent citations: (1905)15MLJ224
ORDER
1. Though there was an irregularity in the charge in so far as it states that the defamation was of the complainant, the husband, and not of the wives, this is an error or irregularity in the charge which did not prejudice the accused or occasion a failure of justice. Having regard to explanation I to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, we think that the husband is a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case in which the imputation of unchastity is made and published in respect of his wife. Following the decision of this Court in Chellam Naidu v. Ramasami I.L.R., 14 M. 379 and of the High Court of Bombay in Chhotalal Lallubhai v. Nathabhai Bechar and Anr. I.L.R.,25 B. 151 we dismiss the petition.