JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. S. C. Bagdiya, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Shreyash Pandit, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Mrs. Swati Ukhale, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the complaint filed under sections 500 & 501 of the IPC against the petitioners by the first respondent, of which cognizance has been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar (M.P.). 3. As per the averments made in the complaint, certain baseless allegations had broadcasted against Shri Vijay Shah in the news channel (India TV) on 15-6-2010, of which the petitioner No. 2 is the editor-in-chief and petitioner No. 3 is the local reporter, Indore, in order to obstruct the political career of Shri Vijay Shah causing him and his family members and friend mental agony. This complaint was not filed by Shri Vijay Shah. This borne from the reading of the copy of the complaint. 4. On perusal of the complaint, which has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure-P/1, a bare reading of the complaint and shows that this complaint has been filed by Shri Sunil Singh first respondent, who is a friend of Shri Vijay Shah. Cognizance has been taken on the aforesaid complaint by the Matrimonial Magistrate and notices were issued to the petitioners vide order dated 5th of July, 2010. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no cognizance could have been taken on the aforesaid complaint in view of section 199 of Criminal Procedure Code, which prevents for taking cognizance of such complaint, except upon the complaint filed by the " person aggrieved " which in this case would be Shri Vijay Shah. 6. Section 199 of Criminal Procedure Code is reproduced for the sake of reference. 199. Prosecution for defamation. - (1) No Court shall take cognizance of 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. 6. Section 199 of Criminal Procedure Code is reproduced for the sake of reference. 199. Prosecution for defamation. - (1) No Court shall take cognizance of 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 Governor of a State , the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister of the Union or of 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 of Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint is 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. (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 the 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 that power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint. 7. However, on perusal of this section, the accused to show that at the present, aggrieved would be Shri Vijay Shah, who has not come to this Court by filing a complaint. It is nobody's case that Shri Vijay Shah is an idiot or a lunatic and is not in a position to look after his interest. 8. The petitioner has also brought my notice the judgment of the Apex Court recently passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and two other judges in the case of S. Khusbhoo vs. Kanniammal and another, AIR 2010 SC 3196 . The relevant para is reproduced. Para-25. "This takes us to the question of whether the impugned complaints were made in a bona fide manner. As we have already noted, most of the complaints are associated with the PMK, a political party which is active in the State of Tamil Nadu. This fact does add weight to the suggestion that the impugned complaints have been filed with the intention of gaining undue political milege. It may be reiterated here that in respect of the offence of defamation. Section 199 Criminal Procedure Code mandates that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence only upon receiving a complaint by a person who is aggrieved. This limitation on the power to take cognizance of defamation serves the rational purpose of discouraging the filing of frivolous complaints which would otherwise clog the Magistrate's Courts. There is of course some room for complaints to be brought by persons other than these who are aggrieved, for instance when the aggrieved person has passed away or is otherwise unable to initiate legal proceedings. There is of course some room for complaints to be brought by persons other than these who are aggrieved, for instance when the aggrieved person has passed away or is otherwise unable to initiate legal proceedings. However, in given facts of the present case, we are unable to see how the complaints can be properly described as "persons aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 199(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code. As explained earlier, there was no specific legal injury caused to any of the complainants since the appellant's remarks were not directed at any individual or a readily identifiable group of people. In M. S. Jayaraj vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerla and others, (2000) 7 SCC 552 : ( AIR 2000 SC 3266 ), this Court observed as under ; "The person aggrieved" means a person who is wrongfully deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. 'Person aggrieved' means a person who is injured or one who is adversely affected in a legal sense." 9. In view of the aforesaid, there is substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Nothing contrary to the aforesaid has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is allowed and the complaint Annexure - P/1 and the proceedings arise thereof pending in the Court of JMFC are quashed. C. C. as per rules.