N. K. BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) BY this revision, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding in C Case No. 1188 of 1993 pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. ( 2 ) UPON a petition of complaint by opposite party No. 1 herein the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Airport, took cognizence of an offence against the petitioner herein by his order No. 1 dated 1. 12. 93. ( 3 ) THE gravement of the opposite party was, in his petition of complaint, that the petitioner herein was the chief of bureau of Deutsche Press Agency, which was a private organisation, having its office, amongst other places, at 39 Golflinks, New Delhi. The Deutsche Press Agency is having its registered office at Mittlewg D-20148 Hamburg, and the petitioner, accused No. 1, has a branch office in India. The petitioner was engaged in collecting and disseminating the news all over the world for publication in the various newspaper being published in India and abroad by various news-papers. Complaint was also made against one K. P. K. Kutty, the Chef Editor and General Manager of United News of India, which is a news agency, member correspondent of Deutsche Press Agency. The petitioner herein is the Chief of the Bureau and the said Mr. Kutty was the Chief Editor and General Manager of the U. N. I. The further allegation in the petition of complaint was that the petitioner, accused No. 1 circulated a report carrying Dateline 'berline June 24, 1993' to the Indian Newspapers and News Agencies stating, inter alia, that the "three Indian businessmen have been arrested on suspicious of irregularities in connection with an East German Fibre Firm which they bought from TREUHANDANST ACT, Privatisation Agency, Berlin Police said on Thursday. The police spokesman identified the three men as the brothers Sanjoy end Anurag Dahmia and Aspy Mehta. A warrant for their arrest has been issued. " ( 4 ) IT has been alleged in the petition of complaint that the said report made false and fabricated imputation knowing it fully well that such imputation will not only injure the witnesses No. 2 and 3 (Sanjoy and Anurag Dalmia but also directly and/or indirectly lower their moral character and discredit them in the estimation of others and in per se defamatory. ( 5 ) THE further allegation in the complaint was that the said report of June 24, 1993 was circulated by the petitioner herein in furtherance of common intention with Mr. Kutty, the accused No. 2, which was widely made, published and circulated amongst others in the Indian Express, Statesman, Economic Times, Financial Express, Times of India, Business Standard, Telegraph, Anandabazar Patrika, Bartaman etc. on 25. 6. 93, the same was read by the complainant and the witnenses in Calcutta only to be aggrieved under the jurisdiction of Bhawanipur Police Station where the complainant resides and at Delhi also. Allegation has also been made that Scheutlus Espy and partner, advocates acting on behalf of the present petitioner responded to the witnesses No. 2 and 3's lawyer's notice dated June 28, 1993 and agreed on behalf of the petitioner herein to issue the corrected version after they has satisfied that the news reported on 24th of June, 1993 was defamatory. Accordingly, the petitioner herein circulated the clarificatory version both in German and English versions in Germany and in India on September 3, 1993. Further allegation was that the petitioner herein and Mr. Kutty deliberately and intentionally did not get the clarificatory report published in the Indian Newspaper and thus they caused immense harm to the reputation, character, credit and standing of the witnesses No. 2 and 3 (Sanjoy and Anurag Dalmia ). The advocates of witnesses No. 2 and 3 Swarup and Company by their letter dated September 20, 1993 called upon Mr. Nutty to release and circulate the said clarificatory report in the newspapers, failing which the witnesses No. 2 and 3's company warned accused No. 2 Mr. Kutty that they would proceed against him for defamation. ( 6 ) REGARDING the competence of the complainant it has been alleged that he is an employee of M/s. Dalmia Industry Ltd. which is the sister concern of M/s. Dalmia Brothers Private Ltd. , a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and one Mr. M. M. L. Bhasin, the Director and Principal Officer of Dalmia Brothers Pvt Ltd. authorised the complainant to institute, file and verify the petition of complaint for and on behalf of the company M/s. Dalmia Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and in his own capacity. M. M. L. Bhasin, the Director and Principal Officer of Dalmia Brothers Pvt Ltd. authorised the complainant to institute, file and verify the petition of complaint for and on behalf of the company M/s. Dalmia Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and in his own capacity. He is highly aggrieved by defamation caused to Anurag and Sanjay Dalmia by the accused persons. ( 7 ) THE complaint was made for issuance of process against both the accused persons namely, the petitioner herein and Mr. Kutty for offences under sections 500/501/34 I. P. C. ( 8 ) THE learned Magistrate after recording the statement on affirmation of the complainant and his two witnesses took cognizance of the offence against the present petitioner and issued process for an offence under section 500 I. P. C. No process was issued against accused No. 2, Mr. Kutty. ( 9 ) MR. Dilip Kumar Dutta appearing with Mr. Subhas Kumar Deb, learned advocates for the petitioner, contended that taking cognizance of the offence by the learned Magistrate by his order No. 1 dated 1. 12. 93 is bad in law inasmuch as the complaint has been filed by a person not 'aggrieved' by the offence within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person 'aggrieved' by offence. Mr. Dutta submitted that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the offence as alleged and the offence is for defamation which comes within Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his contention Mr. Dutta referred to the competence statement as made in paragraph 1 of the petition of complaint wherein the complainant has alleged that he was authorised by one Mr. M. M. L. Bhasin, the Director and Principal Officer of Dalmia Brothers Pvt. Ltd. , a sister concern of M/s. Dalmia Industry Ltd. of which the complainant is an employee to file the complaint. He also pointed out from the said paragraph of the complaint that due to defamation caused to Anurag and Sanjoy Dalmia by the accused person he is highly aggrieved. ( 10 ) MR. Dutta pointed out that some bald statement has been made in the petition of complaint as to the cause of his being aggrieved. He also pointed out from the said paragraph of the complaint that due to defamation caused to Anurag and Sanjoy Dalmia by the accused person he is highly aggrieved. ( 10 ) MR. Dutta pointed out that some bald statement has been made in the petition of complaint as to the cause of his being aggrieved. In support of his contention Mr. Dutta relied on some decisions, to wit, G. Narasimhan v. T. V. Chokkappa AIR 1972 SC 2609 ; Ganesh Nand v. Swami Divyanand 1983 Cri LJ 1036 ; D. N, Sen v. R. K. Bhadra AIR 1970 Cal 216 ; S. K. Ghose v. Shoutmari Ashram repotred in AIR 1970 Cal 248 . ( 11 ) THE learned advocate for the opposite party No. 1 Mr. Bhaskar Sen on the other hand has contended that no petition of complaint can be filed for an offence under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code except by 'some person aggrieved' within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 199 Cr P. C. and that there is difference and distinction between person aggrieved' and 'person defame'. In support of his contention he relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pat Sharpe v. Dwijendra Nath Bose 68 CWN 654. ( 12 ) HIS next contention was that in case of quashing of the proceeding at the initial stage under the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 Cr. P. C. the power has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. Reliance was placed in support of his submission in the case of Kurukkhetra University v. State of Haryana AIR 1977 SC 2229 and State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan AIR 1989 SC 1 . ( 13 ) HEARD the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties. Considered the materials on record. In the case of G. Narasimhan (supra) the Supreme Court in the background of the fact that upon a petition of complaint for offence under sections 500 and 501 by the Chairman of reception committee of the conference organised by the party Dravida Kazhagam alleging that the news item was published by the accused in the newspapers regarding certain resolution. The resolution was read out by the president of the , conference and taken as passed because none opposed it. The resolution was read out by the president of the , conference and taken as passed because none opposed it. The conference consisted of a large number of members of the patty sympathizers, leaders. and outsiders including. 5,000 women, has held at page 2613 para 13 that "the principle question for determination is whether the respondent could be. said to be an aggrieved person entitled to maintain the complaint within the meaning of section 198 of the Code. That section lays down that no Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence falling inter alia under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by. 'some person aggrieved' of such offence. "13a. Section 198, thus, lays downs an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by anybody whether he is an aggrieved person or not, and modified the rule by permitting only an aggrieved person to move a Magistrate in cases of defamation. The section is mandatory, so that if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed. by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction of an accused in such a case by the Magistrate would be void and illegal. " ( 14 ) THE principle laid down in Ganesh Nand's case (supra) by the Delhi High Court is based on a decision of a single Bench of a Calcutta Hips Court in the case of D. N. Sen (supra ). In Ganesh Nand's case the complaint was filed by a Sanyasi and a disciple of Swami Purnand Ji Maharaj. Complaint was filed on the ground that some imputations have been made by an ex-communicated chela of Swami Purnand Ji Maharaj alleging that he was involved in an illicit connection with one Suit. Pratima Devi. In that background of the fact the single Bench of Delhi High Court had held inter alia in paragraph 9 at page 1038 that "it was further observed that as such the decision of Calcutta High Court in Dhirendra Nath Sen's (D. N. Sen) case (supra) (1970 Cri LJ 662) was distinguishable. At this stage, I made note the ratio of the said decision. It was observed therein that mere. At this stage, I made note the ratio of the said decision. It was observed therein that mere. fact that the feelings of complainant having been injured in consequence of a defamatory statement made against his religious head afforded no ground under the law to the complainant to prosecute the accused for defamation. It was, therefore, held that where the defamation was that of spiritual head of a certain community, an individual person of that community was not the person aggrieved and as such the cognizance of offence taken on a complaint by that individual person was illegal. " ( 15 ) THAT view of the Calcutta High Court was accepted in the case of Ganesh Nand. ( 16 ) IN paragraph 11 of Ganesh Nand's case the principle has been laid down that in order to prove the allegation the complainant shall have to prove that the imputation are against him personally or that he is the person aimed at. ( 17 ) IN the case of Sukamal Kanti Ghosts (S. K. Ghose) (supra) a single Bench of the Calcutta High Court has taken the same view as in the case of Dhirendra Nath Sen (supra ). ( 18 ) SO the test for ascertaining 'some person aggrieved' is that the imputation must be against the complainant personally or must be aimed at him. ( 19 ) IN M/s. Pat Sharpe's case (supra) no doubt it has been held that a petition of complaint of an offence under Chapter XXI would be competent by a 'person aggrieved' and not by a 'person defamed'. But it has also been held in that judgment that if a 'parson defamed' is an adult and a male and is not incapacitated by physical infirmities or otherwise incapable of attending the court, no other person should be competent to make a complaint under section 500. ( 20 ) IN the instant case, according to the complainant, the person defamed, are Dalmia Brothers, namely, Sanjoy and Anurag Dalmia and one Mr. Aspy Mehta. Both Sanjoy and Anurag have been cited as witnesses being witnesses no. 2 and 3, in the petition of complaint. Nowhere in the petition of complaint it has been stated that they are neither adult nor male and that they are incapacitated by physical infirmities or otherwise incapable of attending the Court. Aspy Mehta. Both Sanjoy and Anurag have been cited as witnesses being witnesses no. 2 and 3, in the petition of complaint. Nowhere in the petition of complaint it has been stated that they are neither adult nor male and that they are incapacitated by physical infirmities or otherwise incapable of attending the Court. There is also nothing in the petition of complaint that the reporting was made personally against the complainant or was aimed at him. ( 21 ) NO doubt in the case of Murad Ali Khan (supra) and Kurukhetra University (supra) the Supreme Court has held that for invoking inherent power under section 482 the Court should exercise the power sparingly with circumspection. ( 22 ) THIS is the general principle but if there are materials on record for interfering or for quashing of the proceeding, the Court should consider the same and should not be hesitant to interfere with the proceeding and to quash the same. ( 23 ) IN the instant case, it a patent on the face of the complaint that the defamatory report was made against the Dalmia Brothers namely, Sanjoy and Anurag Dalmia and one Mr. Aspy Mehta. So, the defamatory report was not made personally against the complaint or was not aimed at him personally. ( 24 ) IN that view of the matter I am of the opinion that the complaint has been filed by a person who is not a `person aggrieved' and as such taking cognizance of the offence on that complaint is bad and illegal and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceeding, being C Case No. 1188 of 1993, is hereby quashed. . The revision is thus allowed. Appeal allowed.