Reflection on cases including the jurisdiction of the prosecutor's office in crimes against chastity; Relying on the case law

Unfortunately, the lack of a clear and specific definition by the legislator regarding the offense of defying chastity and illicit relationships has resulted in violent judicial opinions and numerous disagreements in the courts today. Today, in the prosecutor's office, what is taken into consideration by considering the documents and contents of the submitted cases is that; Often, investigating judges, relying on the application of Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Law approved in 2013 with subsequent amendments, and on the one hand, due to the lack of a clear definition in this regard, refuse to enter into such cases in an appropriate manner and immediately refer the case to the court. They send the court. What is useful from the present research is that regarding the handling of cases against chastity, first, in terms of jurisdiction, a distinction should be made between physical and non-physical behaviors committed, and secondly, the lack of jurisdiction of the investigating authority in handling These cases are incorrect in terms of application. Thirdly, in order to enter the said cases, the conditions mentioned in Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Law approved in 1392 with subsequent amendments must be taken into account, otherwise the best possible option is to terminate the case by issuing a suspension of prosecution order according to Article 383 and Paragraph C of the Article. 389 of the above law. Fourth, in cases where the prosecutor's office does not consider itself competent to handle the case, sending the case to the court is incorrect and should be dealt with only by issuing a judicial order.