JUDGMENT Who is the person that has the requisite right to initiate proceedings under section 199 , Criminal Procedure Code, for an offence of defamation, is the question that poses itself for decision in this petition filed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The facts of the case unfold fascinating insights into the ways of the world and its inhabitants. ‘Probe India’ is a monthly magazine of investigative reporting, published from Allahabad. The petitioner is the Editor-in-Chief of the said magazine. In the issue of July, 1980, an article was published under the caption “Where Daughters Are sold”. This article was written by one V. Sekhar. Untold until now, the publication contained an article of horrifying surprise of hairraising mystery. The opening words of the article read. “Muramanda Village in Andhra Pradesh has a unique notoriety. Daughters of the village, on attaining puberty, are sold as a matter of routine. ‘Hired out’ perhaps is a better expression as the girls come home to settle down at the end of the contract period. During the contact period the girls serve as sex-toys of the buyers, their rich clients, or in houses of ill repute. It is just a job. Nothing more. No stigma attached, and the local people are not averse to accepting them as wives and daughters in law. The social phenomenon fascinated us; so we took a jaunt to Muramanda village,” 3. Edara Venkataraya Choudary, a resident of Muramanda village, who is the first respondent in this petition, filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry against the accused-petitioner for offences under sections 500 and 501, Indian Penal Code, alleging that the article contained in the publication was highly defamatory in character. According to him, he is a respectable member of the village and has got a daughter of marriageable age, against whom also the aspersion is deemed to have been made. The head-note in the article also reads: “It happens in a village of Andhra Pradesh: selling of young girls by their parents in a business like fashion; An incredible, but true story of people who don’t know the meaning of the word “shame”. 4. It is alleged that the article is defamatory of every woman in the village of Muramanda. Under the heading “For Money”, the publication reads: “The illicit trafficking in women has become something of an accepted cottage industry in this place. 4. It is alleged that the article is defamatory of every woman in the village of Muramanda. Under the heading “For Money”, the publication reads: “The illicit trafficking in women has become something of an accepted cottage industry in this place. To the simple cigar-puffing locals, the morality (or immorality) of the thing just does not arise. They need the money, they have the commodity-they sell”. 5. Again, under the caption “Red Carpet All the way” it is published as follows: “……Most parents will not part with their daughters until the first menstruation, but sometimes perverted or jaded appetites offer big money, and principles are conveniently tucked away for a just cause. The average age for sale is between 14 and 16, by which time the girls have ingested the family philosophy, and accept fate with enthusiasm……The girls are examined like cattle at a fair. Teeth, eyes, hair ears, breasts, everything is checked meticulously. Money is involved, but more than that the broker's prestige is at stake. The mother also shares a cigar with the buyer before the deal is closed-to reassure him that there are no vaginal deformities….” Possibly most of the mothers were once sold or hired of. 6. The complainant alleges that the article casts an aspersion on the character of every female in the village and not only the females but the males have to face ignominy from public. The complainant also alleges that the article contains highly libellous and slanderous statements with regard to every female folk of her village making them live in ignominy and shame. The complainant filed the complaint as one of the affected villagers and as a member of the association of persons against whom the defamatory statement is made. The complainant stated that he is an affected person because he is facing difficulty in fixing up a marriage alliance for his daughter since the defamatory statement is made against every daughter of the village and the accused who is the editor-in-chief and publisher of “Probe India” magazine failed to take every precaution while publishing the defamatory material in the magazine which is advertised to the entire country and also in foreign countries suggesting and make the persons believe that every female in the village of Muramanda is a characterless person which is an utter falsehood and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 500 and501, Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the complainant is an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 199, Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore has a right to present the complaint petition. The complainant also pleaded that he comes under Explanation 2 of section 499, Indian Penal Code, and therefore he is entitled to present this complaint petition. 7. The accused has filed this petition to quash the proceedings. The principal contention is that the complainant is not an aggrieved person. It is submitted that in order to qualify the test of “aggrieved person” the defamatory imputation should be directed against him as an individual. It would not be sufficient to say that he has individually suffered because he is a resident of the village which has been defamed. It is argued that 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 he is the person aimed at, before he can maintain a prosecution for defamation. The grievance of the complainant should not merely be the one shared by every resident of that village. The mere fact that the feelings of the complainant have been injured in consequence of the alleged defamatory statement made against the villagers affords him no ground under law to prosecute the petition for defamation. So goes the argument. 8. It is also argued that even according to the complaint petition itself the imputation is deemed to have been made against his daughter, who is of marriageable age and on his own allegation, he is not an aggrieved person and if at all, the aggrieved person is his daug-ter who alone should have filed the complaint. It is also pleaded that the article is not per se defamatory and the allegation against a collection of persons which is not definite and determinate is not capable of being defamed under the Explanation 2 to section 499, Indian Penal Code. 9. The first and foremost question that requires consideration is whether the complainant is an aggrieved person and has a right to present the complaint petition under section 199, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 199 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, reads: “No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1960 ), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Section 199 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, reads: “No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1960 ), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf.” 10. It is useful to read Explanation 2 to section 499, Indian Penal Code. It reads: “499. Defamation.- Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanation 1. * * * * Explanation 2. - It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.” 11. Explanation 2 to section 499, Indian Penal Code, makes it crystal clear that defamatory statement can be made against an association or collection of persons as such. In such a case one of the members of the association or collection of persons may make a complaint on behalf of the collection or association of persons as a whole. The defamation however, must be shown to be a person or association or collection of persons. In other words, where a well-defined class is defamed, each and every member of that class gets a right to initiate criminal proceedings. The complainant must show that the imputation is calculated to harm his own reputation as one member of that large body who has been the target of the libellor. 12. The crucial question is, whether the defamation in this case is against a well-defined class of persons, viz., all the parents in the village of Muramanda. Was the complainant personally pointed to by the defamatory publication? 12. The crucial question is, whether the defamation in this case is against a well-defined class of persons, viz., all the parents in the village of Muramanda. Was the complainant personally pointed to by the defamatory publication? If the untrue imputation affects every father of Muramanda village and his reputation thereby suffers as a result of the imputation made in the publication, then the complainant is entitled to file the complaint petition. 13. It would be apposite at this stage to look at the decided cases on the question. The Supreme Court in G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa, (1972) 2 S.C.J. 596:(1972) 2 MLJ. (S.C.) 61: (1972) 2 An.W.R. (S.C.) (S.C.) 61:(1972) MLJ. (Crl.) 795;A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2609, dealing with the question as to who is an aggrieved person under section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, corresponding to section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 held: “A defamatory imputation against a collection of persons thus falls within the definition of defamation. The language of the Explanation is wide, and therefore, besides a company or an association, any collection of persons would be covered by it. But such a collection of persons must be an identifiable body so that it is possible to say with definiteness that a group of particular persons, as distinguished from the rest of the community, was defamed.” The Calcutta High Court in D. N. Sen v. R.K. Bhadra, A.I.R. 1970 Cal. 216, observed: “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 he is the person aimed at, before he can maintain a prosecution for defamation.” 14. The Patna High Court in Asha Parekh v. State of Bihar, 1977 Crl.L.J. 21, dealing with a defamation of a class of persons falling within Explanation 2 to section 499, Indian Penal Code, observed: “It goes without saying that the word ‘person’ in section 499 of the Code includes a company or an association or a collection of as well, as provided in Explanation 2, of section 499, but the class of persons attributed to must be a small determinate body”. 15. 15. In that case the allegation was that the film ‘Nadan’ was defamatory of the reputation of the advocates as a class and therefore, the accused who were associated with the production of the film in question were liable to be punished for defamation. The High Court after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa, (1972) 2 S.C.J. 596:(1972) 2 MLJ. (S.C.) 61:(1972) 2 An.W.R. (S.C.) 61:A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2609, held: “The class of Advocates in general is a much more amorphous and indeterminate body than the conference alluded to in the Supreme Court case referred to above.” 16. The Delhi High Court in Ganesh Nand v. Swami Divyanand, 1980 Crl.L.J. 1036, also held that a complaint filed by a person who is a disciple of ‘P’, a spiritual head of the Ashram against whom imputations of immoral fife were made was not maintainable. It was also held that the imputations were not against the complainant personally and that they were against ‘P’ and the complainant was only a disciple of ‘P’ and ‘P’ alone was an aggrieved person who could file the complaint under section 199, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent, on the other hand, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahib Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1966) MLJ. (Crl.) 222:(1965) 2 S.C.R. 823:A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1651, wherein the Supreme Court considered the scope of Explanation 2 to section 499, Indian Penal Code and observed: “The language of Explanation 2 to section 499, Indian Penal Code, is general and any collection of persons would be covered by it. Of course, that collection of persons must be identifiable in the sense that one could, with certainity, say that this group of particular people has been defamed, as distinguished from the rest of. the community.” 17. In that case the question was whether the prosecution staff of Aligarh was an identifiable group. The Supreme Court said: “The prosecuting staff of Aligarh or as a matter of fact, the prosecuting staff in the State of Uttar Pradesh, is certainly such an identifiable group or collection of persons. There is nothing indefinite about it. This group consists of all members of the prosecuting staff in the service of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.” 18. In Emperor v. Wahid Ullah Ahrarf, (1953) I.L.R. 57 All. There is nothing indefinite about it. This group consists of all members of the prosecuting staff in the service of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.” 18. In Emperor v. Wahid Ullah Ahrarf, (1953) I.L.R. 57 All. 1012, the Allahabad High Court dealing with a case where the defamatory articles, published in a newspaper, related to the alleged habitual immoral conduct of the girls of a particular college though no particular girl or girls were named in or identifiable from the articles held that the girls of the college were an identifiable class and therefore, the conviction of the accused in that case was rightly recorded. The later decision of the Allahabad High Court in Tek Chand v. R.K. Karanjia3, is also to the same effect. The law in respect of defamation is stated by Salmond, vide Salmond on the Law of Torts, Fifteenth Edition page 187 as follows: “In every case where the plaintiff is not named the test whether the words used refer to him is the question whether the words are such as would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to. If the words can be regarded as capable of referring to the plaintiff, the jury still have to decide the question of fact. Do they lead reasonable people, who know him to the conclusion that they do refer to him ?( Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper, 1944 A.C. 116 at 121). The reason why a liable published of a large or indeterminate number of persons described by some general name generally fails to be actionable is the difficulty of establishing that the plaintiff was, in fact, included in the defamatory statements, for the habit of making unfounded generalisations is ingrained in all-educated or vulgar minds, or the words are occasionally intended to be facetious exaggeration. Thus no action would lie at the suit of anyone for saying that all mankind is vicious and depraved or even for alleging that all clergymen are hypocrites or all lawyers dishonest Eastwood v. Hoimes, (1858) 1 F. & F. 347. For charges so general in their nature are merely vulgar generalisation.” 19. Thus no action would lie at the suit of anyone for saying that all mankind is vicious and depraved or even for alleging that all clergymen are hypocrites or all lawyers dishonest Eastwood v. Hoimes, (1858) 1 F. & F. 347. For charges so general in their nature are merely vulgar generalisation.” 19. In Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edition, Volume 24 at page 5) it has been observed: “A class of persons cannot be defamed as a class, nor can an individual be defamed by general reference to the class to which he belongs. A similar view has been taken by Gatley in ‘Libel and Slander’, where it has been observed that ‘where the words complained of reflect on a body or class of persons generally such as lawyers clergymen, publications or the like, no particular member of the body or class can maintain an action’.” 20. Therefore, the question to be asked in a case where a class of persons is defamed is whether the words used in the imputation are such as would reasonably lead people who know a person to the conclusion that they do refer to that person or, is imputation made against an indeterminate number of persons? If the defamatory statement is made against an identifiable class of persons and if reasonable people could come to the conclusion that the imputation was made against every member of class of persons, then a complaint for the offence of defamation can be made by every member of such class of persons. In this case can it be said that the imputation is made against an identifiable class of persons namely all parents of Muramanda village whose daughters have attained puberty. The publication reads: “Muramanda village in Andhra Pradesh has a unique notoriety. Daughters of the village, on attaining puberty, are sold as a matter of routine.” 21. It is thus clear that the father of every girl who has attained puberty in the village suffers in reputation as a result of the defamatory statement. The persons with daughters in Muramanda village are an identifiable class. Undoubtedly the publication is highly defamatory and it contains an article which is untold until now and is horrifying. The complainant is a father with a marriagable daughter in the village. He has stated in the complaint petition that he is facing difficulty in fixing up marriage alliance for his daughter. Undoubtedly the publication is highly defamatory and it contains an article which is untold until now and is horrifying. The complainant is a father with a marriagable daughter in the village. He has stated in the complaint petition that he is facing difficulty in fixing up marriage alliance for his daughter. Pointedly the aspersions also affect the reputation of the complainant's daughter. The complainant is one of the affected persons with daughters in the village affected by the untrue imputation. Therefore, the complainant falls within Explanation 2 to section 499 , Indian Penal Code and he is an aggrieved person under section 199, Criminal Procedure Code. 22. It is next contended that on the complainant's own showing he cannot be an aggrieved person and if at all anyone is aggrieved, it is only his daughter and therefore, the daughter alone should have filed the complaint. The daughter is under the protection of her father and he has to get her married. I have no manner of doubt that if an imputation of immorality is made against a girl, the reputation of the father is bound to be affected. Therefore, the father is an aggrieved person and has a right to initiate criminal proceedings under section 199, Criminal Procedure Code. Vide Hardevi Malkani v. State, A.I.R. 1969 All. 423 and Biswanath Bubna v. The King, A.I.R. 1949 Cal. 567. 23. Therefore, it follows that the contentions of the petitioner, are unsound and cannot be upheld. The petition is accordingly dismissed. R.S.----- Petition dismissed.