O R D E R This Criminal Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.181 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nirmal, Adilabad District, to quash the proceedings against them for the offences under Sections 500 and 501 of I.P.C. 2. The petitioners alleged to have published a news item in their daily newspaper ‘Andhra Bhoomi” alleging that there was some information that two persons and their followers appropriated the amount collected from the contractors. The name of the complainant is not referred in the news item. The complainant claims that he is one of the accused in the crime, which was registered against the persons referred in the news item. As seen from the news item, there is no direct nexus between the news item and the complainant and no defamatory statement has been made against him. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 198 of Cr.P.C., the aggrieved person must file the complaint, but the complainant cannot be said to be the aggrieved person, therefore, the complaint itself cannot be maintained. The persons who were referred in the news item have no grievance and they did not come up with any complaint that their reputation has been defamed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in G. NARASIMHAN v. T.V. CHOKKAPPA (1), wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: “Section 198 lays down an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by anybody whether he is an aggrieved person or not, and modifies that 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 would be void and illegal. A defamatory imputation against a collection of persons falls within Explanation 2 to S. 499 I.P.C. But when that Explanation speaks of a collection of per-sons as capable of being defamed, such collection of persons must be a definite and a determinate body so that the imputations in question can be said to relate to its individual members or components. A defamatory imputation against a collection of persons falls within Explanation 2 to S. 499 I.P.C. But when that Explanation speaks of a collection of per-sons as capable of being defamed, such collection of persons must be a definite and a determinate body so that the imputations in question can be said to relate to its individual members or components. A complaint was filed under Sections 500 and 501 I.P.C. by the Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Conference organised by the party named Dravida Kazhagam. The complaint was in respect of a news-item published by the accused in their newspapers regarding certain resolution. The resolution was read out by the President of the conference and taken as passed because no one got up to oppose it. The conference consisted of a large number of members of the party sympathisers, leaders and outsiders including 5000 women. Held that it was impossible to have any definite idea as to the number of persons who attended the conference, the ideas and ideologies to which they subscribed and whether all of them positively agreed to the resolution in question. The Conference clearly was not an identifiable or a definite body so that all those who attended it could be said to be its constituents who, if the Conference was defamed, would, in their turn be said to be defamed. The Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Conference could not therefore be said to be an aggrieved person entitling to maintain the complaint within the meaning of S. 198, Criminal P.C. Whether the Dravida Kazhagam was an identifiable group or not was beside the point.” Section 198 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “198. Prosecution for offences against marriage:(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the office.” Section 199 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “199. Prosecution for defamation:- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.” 5. In view of the above Judgment and the contents of the Sections, the aggrieved person must approach the Court. Prosecution for defamation:- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.” 5. In view of the above Judgment and the contents of the Sections, the aggrieved person must approach the Court. As the complainant is not an aggrieved person, there is no locus standi for him to maintain the complaint and as the defamatory statement is not aimed at the complainant, there cannot be any grievance for him. There is no prima facie material against the petitioners to prosecute them for the offences under Sections 500 and 501 of I.P.C., therefore, the prosecution is liable to be quashed against them. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners in C.C.No.181 of 2003 is quashed. --X—