JUDGMENT Ranjit Singh, J.:-Those who fill a public position must not be too thin skinned in reference to comments made upon them. So said Cockburn C.J. long ago. How true this seems even today and in the present case where proceedings for defamation have been initiated against the petitioner, an Ex-Chief Minister of the State by respondent, who is a General Secretary of Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), U.T. Chandigarh and an Advocate. Respondent has filed this complaint against the petitioner alleging that petitioner has defamed the party President of Akali Dal (Badal). The petitioner, who stands summoned to face prosecution for an offence under Section 500 IPC, has filed this petition for quashing of the complaint against him purely on technical ground that respondent would not have locus to file this complaint as he is not a person, who is aggrieved by the posters. 2. The impugned complaint filed by the respondent date backs to a time when the Assembly elections in the State of Punjab were held in the year February, 2002. Respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner, who was a Chief Ministerial candidate for a Congress party in the State. Petitioner attributes this complaint to be a loud gesture of loyalty by respondent towards his party President Shri Parkash Singh Badal, who is described as Masiha of down-trodden. It is termed as an exercise in political tactics and filed with a purpose of keeping the party support intact and, thus, is stated to be impelled by extraneous consideration and termed as malafide. Since the petitioner has not sought quashing of this complaint on merits and has confined his prayer for quashing only on the ground of locus, the prayer made in the petition is accordingly being addressed on that ground alone. 3. The facts, in brief, as discerned from the petition, are that Assembly elections to the State of Punjab were held in February, 2002. Petitioner claims himself to be a candidate for the Congress Party. The complaint relates to the advertisement/posters published in five Newspapers before the assembly elections, which were to be held in February, 2002. These five posters are exhibited with the complaint as C-1 to C-5. It is averred that first poster does not mention the name of the Newspaper in which it was published. The complaint relates to the advertisement/posters published in five Newspapers before the assembly elections, which were to be held in February, 2002. These five posters are exhibited with the complaint as C-1 to C-5. It is averred that first poster does not mention the name of the Newspaper in which it was published. Second poster was statedly published in “Daily Desh Sewak” on 31.1.2002 and third poster in “Daily Ajit” on 30.1.2002. Fourth one is an advertisement published in “The Tribune” on 31.1.2002, whereas Exh.C-5, is an advertisement published in “Punjab Kesri” on 30.1.2002. These five posters/advertisements are annexed with the petition as Annexures P-2 to P-6. In support of his complaint, respondent appeared as CW-1 and recorded his statement on 4.2.2002. A similar kind of allegations are made in a complaint filed by Sukhbir Singh Badal son of Parkash Singh Badal, then Ex-Chief Minister and now a Chief Minister of the State. A copy of this complaint is also annexed with the petition as Annexure P-8. The petitioner has been summoned in the complaint filed by Sukhbir Singh Badal and another filed by Parkash Singh Badal in regard to these advertisements, which are termed as defamatory and published in the Newspapers. The sum and substance of the said advertisements of which Parkash Singh Badal has made allegations of defamation are the same as in Annexure P-4 (Exh.C-3) in the impugned complaint. The petitioner has also been summoned in a complaint filed by Parkash Singh Badal present Chief Minister, Punjab. The allegations made in the complaint filed by Sukhbir Singh Badal and Parkash Singh Badal are stated to be same about which the respondent is aware as he has filed his power of attorney as a counsel in the said cases on behalf of the complainants. On the basis of this complaint filed by respondent, the petitioner has been summoned on the ground that the complaint prima-facie shows that the reputation of complainant’s leader Shri Parkash Badal, President Shiromani Akali Dal has been harmed. Finding that the publications are defamatory in the eyes of party workers, friends and relatives, lowering the image of Ex-Chief Minister Punjab and his reputation, the order summoning the petitioner has been made. 4. The complaint when perused would show that the allegations made therein have mentioned that Shri Parkash Singh Badal has betrayed the innocent people of Punjab. Finding that the publications are defamatory in the eyes of party workers, friends and relatives, lowering the image of Ex-Chief Minister Punjab and his reputation, the order summoning the petitioner has been made. 4. The complaint when perused would show that the allegations made therein have mentioned that Shri Parkash Singh Badal has betrayed the innocent people of Punjab. Holding Congress Party directly responsible for making the allegations against Parkash Singh Badal, it is alleged that Congress Party wanted to defame Shri Parkash Singh Badal by getting these advertisements published to harm his reputation. It is then alleged that the Congress Party through its President, i.e., the petitioner is bent upon defaming the image and reputation of the respondent’s leader and hence he has filed this complaint. 5. The petitioner prays for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order on various grounds primarily by contending that in view of provisions of Section 199 Cr.P.C., right to file complaint is to a person aggrieved by the offence and, therefore, the present complaint at the instance of the respondent would not be maintainable. As per the petitioner, complainant is acutely conscious of this legal incapacity on his part to file this complaint as would be apparent from the contents of the complaint itself, wherein a reference has been made to resolution by the Local Unit of Party authorising the complainant to institute the complaint. The petitioner would find fault with the complaint even on the ground that complainant, though an Advocate, but has not cared to aver or prove that Akali Dal (Badal) is a juristic person and, therefore, can sue. According to the petitioner, the complaint is equally liable for outright rejection as it arraigns Punjab Congress Committee as the accused without making any averment that it is a juristic person. Besides, allegation of false implication on account of political consideration, which is termed as an ulterior objective before the assembly elections, is also made against the respondent. 6. It appears that no reply has been filed. However, respondent Mr.N.S.Minhas, who has filed this complaint in his capacity as General Secretary of the Akali Dal, did appear and made submissions in support of his stand. 7. 6. It appears that no reply has been filed. However, respondent Mr.N.S.Minhas, who has filed this complaint in his capacity as General Secretary of the Akali Dal, did appear and made submissions in support of his stand. 7. In response to the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that present complaint at the instance of respondent would not be maintainable, he being not the aggrieved person, the respondent relies upon Explanation (2) under Section 499 IPC, which defines the offence of defamation. Both the sides have referred to number of judgments before me in support of their respective submissions. It was not seriously disputed before me that Section 199 Cr.P.C. would control the prosecution of an offence for defamation. There is no scope of any dispute in this regard. This Section clearly provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The Section itself carves out some exception to this general principle by way of a proviso in those cases where such aggrieved person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot and lunatic, or is unable to make a complaint on account of sickness or infirmity or is a woman, who according to local customs and manners ought not to be compelled to appear in public or some other person may, with leave of the court, make a complaint on his or her behalf. The provisions of Section 199 Cr.P.C. are reproduced below:- “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: 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. (2)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice- President of India, the Government of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister of the Union or a State or of a Union territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. (3) Every complaint referred to in sub-section (2) shall set forth the facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. (4) No complaint under sub-section (2) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction- (a) of the State Government, in the case of a person who is or has been the Governor of that State or a Minister of that Government; (b) of the State Government, in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State; (c) of the Central Government, in any other case. (5) No Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (2) unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint. 8. The copy of the complaint is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. It is filed by respondent as General Secretary, Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), U.T. Chandigarh and is against Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee, through its President Capt. Amarinder Singh (petitioner). 8. The copy of the complaint is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. It is filed by respondent as General Secretary, Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), U.T. Chandigarh and is against Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee, through its President Capt. Amarinder Singh (petitioner). Concededly, in the complaint, there is no allegation against the respondent Narinder Singh Minhas and that is not even the allegation in the complaint. It is alleged that Congress Party had directly made allegations against the party President Mr. Parkash Singh Badal of he having mortgaged the water to its Haryana counter-part Mr.Om Parkash Chautala, besides showing that Mr.Badal is handing over a mortgage deed to Mr.Chautala of SYL Water and future of “Punjab Kissan” and in turn Mr.Chautala is handing over a gift deed, i.e., allotment letter from the Government of Haryana in favour of Badal for 20 acres plot in Gurgaon valued at 500 crores. It is, thus, alleged that advertisement seems to hit the target and tried to defame the party President. Reference is also made to the advertisement published showing Mr.Badal has made 3500 crores under the caption “Mukhmantri ne Banaya 3500 crores ka mal” (C.M. has made 3500 crores worth of property). Another advertisement is referred to a poster which says”Aandey Kitte-Kurkur Kitte”, (Eggs are somewhere and hens are some where else). Here Mr.Badal is shown to have got a Night Club, Parking Lot, Petrol Pump and other properties in America, Australia. The advertisements are captioned with a slogan, like Badal Hattoo, Punjab Bachaoo” (remove Badal and save Punjab). 9. Minute analysis of these advertisements and the allegations in the complaint would indicate that these make reference only to an individual, named Parkash Singh Badal, Chief Minister, Punjab. Even the complainant-respondent is conscious of this fact and has averred in the complaint that after reading the Newspaper, members and office bears of the Local Unit have felt hurt. Even the averred intention attributed to the petitioner is to defame party President Parkash Singh Badal in the eyes of general public at large in order to get votes. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, respondent can claim himself to be the aggrieved person. 10. Even the averred intention attributed to the petitioner is to defame party President Parkash Singh Badal in the eyes of general public at large in order to get votes. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, respondent can claim himself to be the aggrieved person. 10. When confronted with this legal bar on his part to file this complaint and the fact that the individual, who may have been defamed, has already filed complaints etc., the respondent responded by saying that he being a party worker felt aggrieved as the party as such was defamed by these advertisements. His attention was then drawn to the averments made in his complaint that there was no allegation of the petitioner having defamed the party in any manner and that the advertisement only made reference to an individual, named Parkash Singh Badal. The respondent then resorted to a desperation of a sort by saying that “Badal is a party and Party is Badal”. This may be a conception of the respondent, but would be a difficult proposition to be legally acceptable to the Court. It is not for this court to comment on the individual perception of a party worker, but certainly courts are not the arena where political battles are to be fought on the basis of such individual concepts. It may not even be a stand of Mr.Parkash Singh Badal that he is a party and party is he or that he is bigger than even a party which he heads. It seems to be reaction of an over enthusiastic party worker to express his loyalty to a leader. To me, it is clear that reference in the advertisement is to an individual, named Mr.Parkash Singh Badal, the then Chief Minister, Punjab and is even not to a party that he is statedly heading. In this background, it would be rather difficult to hold that the respondent would be an aggrieved person as he has tried to convey. 11. There does not seem to be much doubt in regard to the legal proposition that cognizance of an offence under Section 500 IPC can only be taken on the basis of a complaint filed by an aggrieved person or by any such person, who is covered by the exceptions carved out. 11. There does not seem to be much doubt in regard to the legal proposition that cognizance of an offence under Section 500 IPC can only be taken on the basis of a complaint filed by an aggrieved person or by any such person, who is covered by the exceptions carved out. Section 199 Cr.P.C. is in the negative and would create a complete bar for the court to take cognizance as its wording read that “no court shall take cognizance of an offence except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence”. Reference here may be made to the case of Kartar Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1956 Supreme Court 541. This was a case where there was allegation of hurling vulgar abuses against the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister when the State proceeded against the affected person for an offence under Section 9 of the Public Safety Act. Finding that the indecent and vulgar slogans were directed against the Minister, it was held that the redress of the grievance was personal to those individuals and the State authorities could not take the cudgels on their behalf by having recourse of Section 9 of the Public Safety Act, unless and until defamation of these individuals was prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. In Kelley Vs. Sherlock, (1866) 1 Q.B. 686 (689) (C), it was aptly observed that “whosoever fills a public position rendered himself- open to public discussion, and if any part of his public act is wrong, he must accept the attack as necessary, though unpleasant circumstances attaching to his position. It is said that public men in such position may as well think it worth their while to ignore such vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled against them rather than give an importance to the same by prosecuting the persons responsible for the same. In Narasimhan and others etc. etc. Vs. T.V.Chokkappa, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2609, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 198 (now 199) has held that the complainant himself must be aggrieved and that this section is mandatory. In Narasimhan and others etc. etc. Vs. T.V.Chokkappa, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2609, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 198 (now 199) has held that the complainant himself must be aggrieved and that this section is mandatory. The relevant observations in this regard are as under:- “On these contentions, the principal question for determination is whether the respondent could be said to be an aggrieved person entitled to maintain the complaint within the meaning of S.198 of the Code. That section lays down that no magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence falling inter alia under Ch.XXI of the Penal Code (that is Ss.499 to 508) except upon a complaint made by some persons aggrieved of such offence. Section 198, thus, lays own 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 of an accused in such a case by the Magistrate would be void and illegal. Thus, in case where the complaint of defamation is filed by a person, who is not aggrieved by an offence, then the trial and conviction of an accused in such cases would be void and illegal. 12. As is already noticed, the complaint in the present case has not mentioned the respondent nor does it contain any defamatory imputation against him individually. Reading of Section 499 of the Penal Code, which defines the offence of defamation, would show that the section makes defamation in respect of an individual an offence. Section says that whosoever, by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs etc. makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that the imputation will harm the reputation of said person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanation (2) on which the respondent has placed reliance to substantiate his locus to maintain the present complaint against the present petitioner, in my view, would also not rescue the situation for him. Explanation (2) on which the respondent has placed reliance to substantiate his locus to maintain the present complaint against the present petitioner, in my view, would also not rescue the situation for him. As per this explanation, it may amount to a defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. A defamatory imputation against a collection of persons, thus, may fall within the definition of defamation. Even any collection of persons or company or an association would seem to be covered by it, but as already noticed, the defamatory imputation referred to in the complaint are not against any collection of persons, but against an individual and as such he alone would be an aggrieved person by the offence alleged. From the complaint, no group of particular person as distinguished from the rest of community can be said to have been defamed to attract the provisions of Explanation (2) under Section 499 IPC. In this regard, reference can be made to the observations made in G.Narasimhan’s case (supra). In K.M.Mathew and others Vs. T.V.Balan, AIR 1985 CRI.L.J. 1039, Section 199 is held to be mandatory and only person aggrieved can complain. As observed in this case, as a general rule, complaint can be filed by any body whether he is aggrieved person or not. Section 199 Cr.P.C. engrafts an exception to that general rule. In relation to offences covered under Sections 499 to 502 occurring in Chapter XXI, IPC only an aggrieved person can move the Magistrate. The Section is mandatory. If the complaint is filed by anyone, who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction would be void. In fact, the general principles applicable to a situation like present one, are no longer obscure. Large number of decisions in this regard have consistently taken this view. One of the earlier decision, which can be referred in this regard, is Sahib Singh Mehra Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1451. Reference here can also be made to M.P. Narayana Pillai and others Vs. M.P.Chacko and another, 1986 CRI.L.J. 2002 where the essential ingredients of an offence of defamation are indicated and also that complaint for defamation must be by person aggrieved by the offence. In this regard, it is observed as under:- “S.199 of the Cr.P.C. contains a mandatory provision. Reference here can also be made to M.P. Narayana Pillai and others Vs. M.P.Chacko and another, 1986 CRI.L.J. 2002 where the essential ingredients of an offence of defamation are indicated and also that complaint for defamation must be by person aggrieved by the offence. In this regard, it is observed as under:- “S.199 of the Cr.P.C. contains a mandatory provision. It says that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under Chap.XXI of the I.P.C.(Ss.499 to 502 come under Chap.XXI) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. If the complaint is filed by one who is not an aggrieved person the cognizance of the offence will not only be incompetent, but the trial and conviction would be void. The judicial act of taking cognizance in violation of the bar itself will be an abuse of the process of court. So also taking cognizance without applying the judicial mind to see whether the allegations constitute the offence will also amount to an abuse of process of court. If these contentions are correct, this is evidently a case in which this Court is not only justified but is also bound to exercise the inherent power. It is further held as under:- “The normal and general rule is that any citizen has the right to bring offenders to justice irrespective of the question whether he is personally aggrieved by the offence or not. Every crime is considered an offence against the State and Society at large. Citizens have not only the right but the duty also in seeing that offenders are brought to justice. But the Legislature in its wisdom wanted to place restrictions on this right in specified cases for obvious reasons. Definitely it is on grounds of public policy with which we are not concerned here. S.199 of the Cr.P.C. is one such provision where there is not only the restriction but also a prohibition against the courts from taking cognizance otherwise than by a complaint from a person who is aggrieved by the offence. One of the objects is to prevent the abuse of the process of criminal courts and to avoid harassment to individuals. Satisfaction of that condition is therefore a matter of taking cognizance. It is an exception to the general rule and is mandatory so that violation will result in illegality and want of jurisdiction making the cognizance itself illegal. 13. One of the objects is to prevent the abuse of the process of criminal courts and to avoid harassment to individuals. Satisfaction of that condition is therefore a matter of taking cognizance. It is an exception to the general rule and is mandatory so that violation will result in illegality and want of jurisdiction making the cognizance itself illegal. 13. The respondent, however, has also referred to some of the precedents, but they are mainly relating to the aspects concerning the legal position of consideration of merits and appraising the evidence for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He has referred to Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs. S.Bangarappa and others, 1995(2) Recent Criminal Reports 373 and Dev Raj Garg and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 1997(2) RCC 188 in this regard. The respondent has also referred to Angele G.Pereira Vs. Dr.Leon D’Souza and another, 1998 CRI.L.J. 569 to say that the applicability of Exception to Section 499 can only be gone into by the trial, to say that the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised in this case. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in all these judgments, but none of these relates to proposition where complaint for defamation is filed by a person, who is not aggrieved by the offence. Accordingly, the judgments relied upon and referred to by the respondent, in my view, would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the observations made by Kerala High court in M.P.Narayana Pillai’s case (supra), can be referred to in this regard, wherein it is observed that the judicial act of taking cognizance in violation of the bar itself will be an abuse of process of court. So also taking cognizance without applying the judicial mind to see whether the allegations constitute the offence will also amount to an abuse of process of court. It is observed that if these contentions are correct, this is evidently a case where the court is not only justified but is bound to exercise the inherent powers. 14. So also taking cognizance without applying the judicial mind to see whether the allegations constitute the offence will also amount to an abuse of process of court. It is observed that if these contentions are correct, this is evidently a case where the court is not only justified but is bound to exercise the inherent powers. 14. In view of the detailed discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent is not, in any manner, aggrieved by the offence alleged in the complaint and as such Section 199 Cr.P.C. would bar taking cognizance of offence against the petitioner in this case on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent. The complaint and the order summoning the petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained and are set-aside. The petition allowed. --------------------