Judgment 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 27.8.2001 passed by Sri Chandra Pathak. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No. 1094/2001 (Tr. No. 1172/2001) under which he has ordered to issue summons against the petitioner Swami Madhwashramji Maharaj @ Swami Madhwashram and ors. for standing trial for the offence under Sections 153, 500. 501/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant (O.P.No.2) is the disciple of Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Swarupanand Saraswatiji Maharaj. The said Swamiji has lacs of disciples in all over India and abroad. On 18.6.2001 the Editor of a Hindi daily Amar Ujala published the statement of the petitioner to the effect that Jagatguru Swami Swarupanand Saraswatiji Maharaj had grabbed the lands of others and also attacked them by himself or through others and he (Swamiji) should oe boycotted by Sanatan Hindus as has been done in Utttaranchal. 4. It has been further alleged that on 23.6.2001 in another Hindi daily Rashtriya Sahara the statement of the petitioner was published in which the allegation was levelled that Swami Swarupanand Saraswatiji Maharaj is a land mafia and being of criminal nature could be sent behind the bar. It was also published there is that the Swamiji has become mentally derailed. 5. The further case of the complainant is that the petitioner has got a high ambition to become Shankaracharya of Jyotish Pith and with that and in view, in order to malign Swamiji gave the above statement which is totally false and that on account of above the imputation, sentiments of his disciples were injured and the prestige of Jagat Guru was lowered in the estimation of the people. It is also said that on 25.8.2001 one Kripashankar Prasad Srivastava and Jagarnath Choubey, who were acquainted with the complainant and who knew about his faith in his Swamiji, showed two newspapers and expressed their indignation towards Swamiji as a result of which the complainant was mentally hurt. 6. It appears that after the filing of the complaint, the complainant was examined on S.A. and thereafter the aforesaid Kripashankar Srivastava was examined in enquiry under Section 202 Cr PC.. 6. It appears that after the filing of the complaint, the complainant was examined on S.A. and thereafter the aforesaid Kripashankar Srivastava was examined in enquiry under Section 202 Cr PC.. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and after perusal of news (items published in the above two newspapers passed the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by the offence as envisaged under Section 199, Cr PC. Therefore, he was not competent to file the complaint. So, no cognizance could be taken on the basis of the complaint petition being barred by Section 199 Cr PC and the impugned order is bad in law. In support of his submission he has relied on the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhirendra Nath Sen and another v. Rajat Kanti Bhadra. reported in 1970 Cr LJ 662 and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Ganesh Nand Chela v. Swami Divyanand, reported in 1980 Cr LJ 1036. 8. He further submitted that the petitioner did not make the above statement and the statements do not make out a prima facie case of defamation. 9. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 defended the impugned order. 10. At the out set it may be mentioned that in this case though cognizance has been taken under Section 153 IPC also, the allegations made in the complaint do not show that the imputation made against Swami Satyanand was likely to lead to a riot or that on account of the alleged statement, a riot had taken place. Therefore, no cognizance under Section 152 IPC should have been taken in this case and the petitioner and other accused persons could not be summoned to face trial for this offence. 11. As regards the offence under Sections 500, 501 IPC as provided under Section 199 Cr PC, no Court can take cognizance for these offences except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The words "person aggrieved" of course is not restricted to person actually defamed but the person aggrieved must have a legal grievance and not a fanciful and sentimental one. The words "person aggrieved" of course is not restricted to person actually defamed but the person aggrieved must have a legal grievance and not a fanciful and sentimental one. In the case of Dhirendra Nath Sen and others (supra) the Calcutta High Court in a similar case, while explaining the meaning of "person aggrieved" as mentioned in Section 198 Cr PC (corresponding to Section 199 of new Cr PC) held that "In short, the grievance of the complainant should not merely be the one shared by every member of an organized society. Where, therefore, the editor of a paper writes an editorial which is highly defamatory of the spiritual head of a certain community an individual of that community is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 198 Cr PC. The mere fact that the feelings of the complainant have been injured in consequence of a defamatory statement made against his religious head, affords him no ground under the law to prosecute the accused for defamation." 12. In the case of Ganesh Nand Chela (supra) a complaint was filed under Section 500 Cr PC by a Chela for some defamatory allegations made against his spiritual Guru. The allegations were that he was leading an immoral life with a lady. The Delhi High Court relying on the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhirendra Nath Sen (supra) held that "the complainant has not been able to prove that the imputations are against him personally or that he is the person aimed at. The maximum that one can say is that the complainant has a grievance about his guru being defamed. But that grievance which the other disciplines must also be sharing cannot make him the aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199(1), Cr PC." 13. In this case also, the complainant being a devotee of Swami Satyanand Saraswatiji may have grievance against the petitioner and other accused persons about his spiritual guru being defamed, but in view of the above decisions, only because of that grievance, which according to his own showing must have been shared by other disciples also, he cannot be said to be an "aggrieved person". 14. Therefore. I agree with the, submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no cognizance under Section 500, IPC could be taken in this case, being barred under Section 199(1), Cr PC. 15. 14. Therefore. I agree with the, submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no cognizance under Section 500, IPC could be taken in this case, being barred under Section 199(1), Cr PC. 15. As the allegations in the complaint petition do not disclose an offence under Section 153, IPC and the prosecution under Sections 500. 501 IPC is bad in view of Section 199(1), Cr PC and the impugned order is liable to be set aside, I do not find it necessary to deal with the other submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned order in respect of the petitioner as well as other accused persons is set aside.