Crl. M.C. No. 889 of 1991

23rd June, 1992.

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. M.K. Damodaran, for s
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Grashious Kuriakose and Public Prosecutor (Smt. K. Usha), .

Cases Cited:
1973 Cri LJ 52,AIR 1972 SC 2609 [Para 2]
1971 Ker LT 145,1970 Ker LJ 991 (Followed) [Para 6]

JUDGMENT

ORDER :-Petitioners are the accused in C.C. 318 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thalassery. First respondent filed the complaint under Ss. 500 and 501 read with S. 34 of the I.P.C. alleging that the news item published in the Deshabhimani Daily in its Kozhikode Edition dated 26-5-1991 with respect to the cremation of Rajiv Gandhi, President of the Congress (I) is false, mischievous and politically motivated. The report stated about the insufficiency of sandal wood pieces for the cremation. The first respondent alleged that on account of the publication of the said news report the members of the Indian National Congress (I) have been lowered down in public estimation and that this is per se defamatory.

2. Section 199, Cr. P.C. lays down an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by any body whether aggrieved or not and modifies that rule by permitting only an aggrieved person to make a complaint (See G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa AIR 1972 SC 2609 : (1973 Cri LJ 52)).With regard to offences under Ss. 499 to 502 coming within Chapter XXI of the I.P.C. an aggrieved person alone can file the complaint. Thus, from S. 199(1) it can be seen that only an aggrieved person can initiate the complaint. In other words, the Court will not take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the I.P.C. except upon a complaint made by an aggrieved person.

3. Explanation 2 to S. 499, IPC states that an association, a company or a collection of persons is capable of being defamed. But it must be borne in mind that such persons must be a definite and determinable body. Then only the imputation could be said to relate to its members or components. If there is some definite body of persons capable of being identified, it can definitely be said that the defamatory statement applies to them all. But in a case where it is not so, it would not be possible to single out individual or individuals and say that he or they are defamed. In other words, imputations must be capable of being aimed at particular individuals or collection of individuals capable of being ascertained. From the alleged defamatory statement it is not possible to hold that it relates to any particular individual or individuals. Nor is it possible to hold that it is defamatory to the Congress (I) party.

4. The news item has not affected the reputation of the first respondent either in his personal capacity or as a member of the Indian National Congress (I). As the alleged defamatory statement refers to unidentified Congress(I)leaders in Delhi and as it does not refer to any definite and determinate person or persons, it is indeed difficult to hold that the first respondent is in any way aggrieved by it.

5. In the news item there are no defamatory words or imputations against the Congress (I) party. As the report does not mention the name of any leader of the Congress (I) and as it does not disclose any defamatory statement against the Congress (I) party, it has to be held that the complaint is ill-conceived.

6. The person aggrieved must have a legal grievance. There cannot be any grievance merely on account of a fanciful or sentimental

attitude. As the complaint does not disclose any specific defamatory statement against any specific and identifiable body of persons, it cannot constitute any offence of defamation. At any rate, the first respondent has no locus standi to file the complaint against the news item regarding some event which happened at New Delhi. It is not possible to hold that the news item is defamatory to the Indian National Congress (I) as alleged by the first respondent. It is useful to refer to Krishnaswami v. C. H. Kanaran 1971 KLT 145 where this Court held thus:

"In order to constitute an imputation concerning an association or collection of persons as such under S. 500, IPC, there must be some definite body of persons capable of being identified and to the whole of whom it can be asserted that the defamatory matter applies. If a person complains that he has been defamed as a member of a class, he must satisfy the court that the imputation is against him personally and that he is the person aimed at before he maintained a prosecution for defamation. When an indefinite and indeterminate body of men are defamed, it would not be safe to single out one person to say that he was the person defamed. It is highly necessary that the imputation should be capable of being brought home to a particular individual or collection of individuals as such."

As the alleged news item does not refer to any particular individual or collection of persons, taking cognizance of the offence would amount to abuse of the process of Court and hence it is liable to be quashed.

The complaint is quashed. Petition stands allowed.

Petition Allowed