1. The petitioner No.1 is Printer, Publisher and Editor of Daily Early Times, published from Jammu and petitioner no.2 — its Managing Director. The petitioners' newspaper, in its issue dated 10th May, 2008, published a news item referring to a Srinagar based Women Organization — "Dukhtaran-e-Millat" as "anti-India and Secessionist Organization" and its leader — Aasiya Andrabi as "obscurantist and Islamic fundamentalist". 2. Ms. Naseem W/o Mohd. Rashid, R/o Kanyari, Tehsil and District Kathua, claiming to have deep faith in the Organization and to respect its efforts for highlighting the duties of the Muslim women, filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 500,501 and 502 RPC against the Printer, Publisher, Editor and Managing Director of Daily Early Times-petitioners herein. The respondent's case before the Trial Magistrate was that the news item in question was defamatory in character and lowered the reputation of the Organization and that of all those associated with the Organization. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, on receipt of the complaint, recorded statement of the complainant — respondent in the present petition, and the witness produced by the complainant and on perusal of the complaint and the statement so recorded, held the material to, prima facie, disclose commission of offences punishable under Sections 500(b), 501 (b) and 502(b) RPC and issued process against the petitioners. 3. The petitioners invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 561-Cr.PC, seek quashment of order dated 27th June, 2008, whereby cognizance has been taken and process issued against them and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom on the grounds that the complainant is not an "aggrieved person" within meaning of Section 198 Cr.PC and has no right to file the complaint. It is next urged that the news item refers to Ms. Aasiya Andrabi, who as leader of the "Dukhtaran-e-Millat" is a public figure and in the said capacity has submitted herself to the judgment of the public and that the news item does not constitute offence punishable under Section 500 RPC. The proceedings are also questioned on the grounds that as the news item referred to collection of persons, not a definite and determined body, the news item in question does not constitute the offence alleged in the complaint within a meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 499 RPC. 4. The proceedings are also questioned on the grounds that as the news item referred to collection of persons, not a definite and determined body, the news item in question does not constitute the offence alleged in the complaint within a meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 499 RPC. 4. I have gone through the petition, the order impugned, as also record available on the file and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Section 198 Cr.PC deals with prosecution for breach of contract, defamation and offences against marriage. It prohibits taking cognizance of an offence amongst others punishable under Chapter XXI of the Ranbir Penal Code, except upon a complaint made by some person "aggrieved" by such offence. Chapter XXI of Ranbir Penal Code deals with the offence of defamation. Section 499 defines the offence of defamation, Section 500 prescribes punishment for the offence and Sections 501 and 502 prescribe punishment for printing or engraving and supplying material known to be defamatory and its sale. Before embarking on an exercise to find out whether the material printed in Early Times on 10th May, 2008, is defamatory in character and the complaint filed by the respondent, prima facie, discloses the offence punishable under Sections 500/5017502 RPC, it would be appropriate to examine, if the respondent can claim to be an "aggrieved person" within meaning of Section 198 Cr.PC and entitled to maintain the complaint against the petitioners. 6. The answer to question as to why right to file a complaint alleged in defamation should be restricted to an "aggrieved person" is to be found in definition and ingredients of the offence laid down in Section 499 RPC. In order to constitute offence of defamation within meaning of Section 499 RPC, the words, signs and visible representation made or published must be an "imputation" and such "imputation" must be made with the intention to harm or with a knowledge that it will harm the reputation of another. It is pertinent to point out that criminal liability under Section 499 RPC is not based on the harm or injury to the person against whom imputation is made but upon intention, knowledge and belief of the person making an imputation and, thus, person making such imputation is to be held guilty of the offence of defamation irrespective of actual harm to the person against whom imputation is made. In other words, imputation must have potential to harm or cause injury to a person against whom it is targeted. It is, thus, the person against whom imputation is made who can maintain a complaint as it is his reputation that is intended to be harmed or the person making the imputation has knowledge and belief that the imputation made by him is to harm his reputation. No other person would be in a position to approach the Court how and for what reason, the imputation made was likely to harm the reputation of another person. 7. In the present case, the news item does not at all refer to the respondent and does not make any imputation against the respondent. The respondent, nonetheless, may fall back upon Explanation 2 to Section 499 RFC, noticed hereunder; "It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an "association or collection of persons" as such." 8. It follows that the words spoken, intended to be read or signs or visible representation made or published may not make any imputation against individual but against a collection of persons. The imputation may have potential to harm each and every member of the company, "association or collection of persons" and in such case, such member can be deprived of his right to file the complaint on the ground that as the imputation was not made against him individually, he cannot be taken as "aggrieved person" within meaning of Section 198 CrPC. The reason being that the imputation made, may harm his reputation, like any other member of the company, "association or collection of persons" and even, as if it had been made against such member and not collection of persons. To illustrate, if a club or society comprising of a hundred members is alleged to be a group of cheats and swindlers and a member of club or society files a complaint for defamation, the complaint cannot be thrown out on the ground that he is not an "aggrieved person" because the imputation is made against the club or society and not against him. In such a case, the imputation made would as much harm his reputation as that of other members of the club and shall have same effect, if made against him and not a club or society. In such a case, the imputation made would as much harm his reputation as that of other members of the club and shall have same effect, if made against him and not a club or society. The base line, however, is that the collection of persons must be different or identifiable and the complainant must claim to be a member of such identifiable and different collection of persons. The sympathizer of a company, "association or collection of persons" or the persons influenced by philosophy propounded by collection of persons or having deep faith in such philosophy but not a member of such definite group or collection of person cannot be an "aggrieved person" within meaning of Section 198 CrPC and cannot maintain a complaint for defamation based on imputation made against such group or collection of persons. To sum up, if an imputation is made by spoken words or otherwise that is intended to harm, or the person making the imputation knows or has a reason to plead that such imputation is to harm the reputation of an organization, company, association or a collection of persons, every member of such company, "associa tion or collection of persons" may claim to be an "aggrieved person" within meaning of Section 198 CrPC and file a complaint for defamation against the person making the imputation but mere sympathizer of such company, "association or collection of persons" or having belief in its objects, philosophy and targets cannot be an "aggrieved person" and, thus, entitled to file and maintain a complaint under Section 499/500 RPC. 9. This is, however, only one dimension of the case. The other aspect relates to the "body of persons" of which the complainant claims to be a member. If the "body of persons", against which imputation is allegedly made and of which the complainant claims to be a member, has not a definite shape and structure, so as to qualify to be called an "association or collection of persons", the complainant cannot project himself as an "aggrieved person" for the simple reason that "body of persons" because of its vague composition does not support the claim of anyone including the complainant to be its members and, thus, an "aggrieved person" within meaning of Section 198 Cr.PC. To illustrate, an individual or a group of individuals may commences "campaign/movement" to advance a particular philosophy or attain a particular object and as a "campaign/movement" marches ahead hundreds of people may sympathize with the cause or join the march under the banner of the "campaign/movement". Some of those who join the march may come out from the march after traveling with it for sometime and others may join the march to come out later. But all those who join the march cannot be said to be members of an "association or collections of persons" for the simple reason that the "campaign/movement" was never an "association or collection of persons" within meaning of Section 198 Cr.PC and nobody could claim to be its member and an "aggrieved person", in the event, an imputation was made against such "campaign/movement". The current "campaign/movement" in the country against menace of corruption would provide a ready example of a "campaign/movement" not being an "association or collection of persons" as defined under Section 198 Cr.PC. If any person makes an imputation against the "campaign/movement" with an intention to harm its reputation or with a knowledge and belief that it is likely to harm its reputation, a person who has faith in its program or its bona fide intentions or is wedded to the object of "campaign/movement" cannot come forward with the complaint under Section 499/500 RPC against a person who makes an "imputation" with an intention to harm its reputation or with the knowledge and belief that such imputation is likely to harm its reputation, claiming that "imputation" though not made against him, he still is aggrieved by the imputation and has a right to file complaint under Section 499 RPC. 10. In the present case, the respondent claims to have faith in the philosophy of "Dukhtaran-e-Millat" and to be convinced that "Dukhtaran-e-Millat" is doing a commendable job for uplif tment and empowerment of Muslim women. 10. In the present case, the respondent claims to have faith in the philosophy of "Dukhtaran-e-Millat" and to be convinced that "Dukhtaran-e-Millat" is doing a commendable job for uplif tment and empowerment of Muslim women. However, respondent still cannot claim to be "aggrieved" within meaning of Section 198 Cr.PC for the reason that "Dukhtaran-e-Millat" may be a "campaign/movement" engaged in empowerment of downtrodden, marginalized or insular sections of society, yet is not an "association or collection of persons" within meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 499 RPC, so as to entitle the respondent to claim its membership and maintain the complaint under Section 499/500 RPC on the ground that she is an "aggrieved person" and hurt by the news item in question not targeted against her but "Dukhtaran-e-Millat" — an unidentifiable and non-definitive body of which all those who sympathize with its cause cannot be taken to be its constituents or members. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent in the body of complaint has nowhere claimed to be a member of "Dukhtaran-e-Millat", though in her statement recorded in support of the complaint, she does lay such claim without any supporting material appended to the complaint. 11. So viewed, the Trial Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance on the complaint filed by the respondent under Sections 500(b), 501 (b) and 502(b) RFC and issued process against the petitioners. The Trial Court order dated 27th June, 2008, thus, amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.PC. 12. The petition is accordingly allowed and the Trial Court order dated 27th June, 2008, whereby cognizance had been taken and process issued, quashed.