Concise Analytical Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

A question was referred for the court's opinion asking whether, in cases where a married woman is alleged to have been defamed by the imputation of unchastity, her husband qualifies as "some person aggrieved by such offence" and, on his complaint, the Magistrate may take cognizance under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The opinion contains two brief judicial responses: a primary opinion answering the question in the affirmative, and a concurring statement by Wilkinson, J., who agreed and added an observation about a particular factual circumstance involving alleged intent to injure the husband's reputation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the husband of a married woman who is defamed by the imputation of unchastity is a "person aggrieved" within the ordinary meaning of that expression and therefore may, by his complaint, enable the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis, as stated in the opinion, proceeds in a concise sequence:

1. Interpretation of statutory language: The phrase "some person aggrieved by such offence" (as used in Section 198) is read in its ordinary meaning, and that ordinary meaning, the court holds, includes the husband of a married woman who has been defamed by an imputation of unchastity.
2. Relationship of reputations: The court reasons that the husband's reputation is "so intimately connected with that of his wife" that it would be unreasonable to conclude the defamation would ordinarily be less hurtful to his feelings than to hers; this factual-social observation is used to support including the husband among "persons aggrieved."
3. Interaction with Section 345 (compounding by the person defamed): The opinion notes that under Section 345 the wife (as "the person defamed") may compound the offence without the husband's consent and even against his wish. However, the court treats this statutory allowance to the wife as not determinative of a narrower construction of Section 198 because, in practice, husband and wife will generally act in concert.
4. Statutory construction principle applied: The court views the difference in language between Section 345 and Section 198 as insufficient ground to construe Section 198 narrowly so as to exclude the husband; consequently, the husband is within the class of persons who may complain under Section 198.
5. Concurring observation (Wilkinson, J.): Where it was specifically alleged that the publication was made with the intention of injuring the husband's reputation as well as the wife's, Wilkinson, J. added that the husband was entitled to a finding on the defamation charge made against him and that that particular charge could be compounded only by the husband himself.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court answered the referred question in the affirmative: the husband is a "person aggrieved" under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases where a married woman is defamed by an imputation of unchastity, and the Magistrate may take cognizance on his complaint.

Implications and immediate effects:

• Direct effect on the parties: A husband may file a complaint under Section 198 when his wife is defamed by an imputation of unchastity, and the Magistrate may take cognizance on that complaint.
• Interaction with compounding rights: Although the wife may compound as "the person defamed" under Section 345 without the husband's consent, the court did not treat that statutory provision as excluding the husband from being a person aggrieved under Section 198; generally the spouses will act together, and the language difference does not justify a narrower reading of Section 198.
• Special note from concurring opinion: If the defamatory publication specifically alleges an intention to injure the husband's reputation as well, the husband is entitled to a determination on the defamation charged against him and, as to that charge, only he can compound.
• Broader precedent: The opinion states the court's ruling and its immediate consequences for the parties; the text does not discuss or assert the creation of a broader precedent beyond the resolution of the referred question.

This summary is based exclusively on the text provided in the opinion and does not add or infer facts or legal materials not present in that text.