JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of proceedings initiated under Sections 500 and 501 RPC in the Complaint titled "Swadesh Mitter Bakshiv. Raj Daluja" by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Electricity), Jammu. In the petition, it has been stated that impugned order dated 18th February, 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Electricity), Jammu in the aforesaid Complaint, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections is legally and factually incorrect. The learned Magistrate while issuing the process has failed to appreciate the contents of the Complaint inasmuch as the provisions of the Section 500 RPC in right prospective. The order impugned is erroneous and unwarranted in the eye of law, as such deserves to be set aside. 2. The respondent while filing the Complaint has alleged the news item published on 08th February, 2008 in the Daily State Times, which relates to one-Parul Bakshi S/o. Sh. Sudhir Bakshi, who was involved in a criminal case as per police report has in fact defamed the deceased-Sh. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi, Ex-DIG. Police and the complainant, who claims himself to be the son of deceased-Vishwa Mitter, filed the Complaint for defamation on account of the alleged defamation. In fact, there was not even an iota of averment against the complainant of his family members, but the respondent filed the Complaint by suppressing the fact that Parul Bakshi S/o. Sh. Sudhir Bakshi is also closely related to the deceased, who was his cousin grandson and the complaint has been filed by suppressing the facts with ulterior motives. As per settled law, proceedings under the aforesaid Sections of the RPC can be initiated by the person, who has been defamed and not by any other person. 3. From the bare perusal of the Complaint, in as much as the publication made by the newspaper 'State Times', it is apparently clear that no news item against the respondent has been published and the complainant was not at all connected with the said Complaint. 3. From the bare perusal of the Complaint, in as much as the publication made by the newspaper 'State Times', it is apparently clear that no news item against the respondent has been published and the complainant was not at all connected with the said Complaint. Whatever the new item was published in the newspaper, the same was in good faith and on the reporting of the Police Agency and is neither defamatory nor in any manner cause any imputations to the complainant/respondent, but the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and passed the order impugned, directing the petitioner to fact the trial. The uncontroverted allegations made in the Complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same, on the basis of which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Electricity), Jammu has issued the process against the petitioner do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner. The Complaint on the face of it is not maintainable. 4. The petitioner has challenged the issuance of process in the Complaint by filing the present petition under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. inter alia on the following grounds:- (i) From the bare perusal of the Complaint, it is clear that if the allegations made in the Complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety even then the allegations made in the Complaint do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate without appreciating the facts has issued process against the petitioner and as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled, "G. Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 754 ", has been settled at rest that if no evidence is disclosed in the Complaint, the complaint has to be dismissed and it has further been held that the criminal proceedings are not a shortcut of other remedies available in law and further held that before issuing a process, a criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution, as for the accused, it is a serious matter. On this Court also, the order impugned regarding issuance of process against the petitioner in the Complaint titled above is bad and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner deserves to be quashed, (ii) The news item dated 8th February, 2008 categorically states that one-Parul Bakshi S/o. Sh. Sudhir Bakshi claiming himself to be the grandson of late DIG. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi probably mentioned the name of late DIG-Vishwa Mitter to impress the Police Investigation Agency. In fact, the accused-Parul Bakshi tried to use the name of Vishwa Mitter, who enjoyed good reputation during 60's was a terror for gangsters in the city of temples. The said publication was neither in any manner connected the complainant with regard to any defamatory remarks nor averments made in the said publication was defamatory. In fact, from the very perusal of the contents of the publication inasmuch as the publication dated 19th February, 2008, as relied upon by the respondent/complainant, have highlighted the image of the then late Sh. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi and his family. There was absolutely no averment with regard to malign the reputation of the complainant or in any manner defame him at the estimation of the society at large. The name of Parul Bakshi inasmuch as his father has been categorically mentioned in the said publication, who was involved in criminal offence and against whom criminal cases are still pending. The said person inasmuch as the father, whose name was mentioned in the publication has neither denied the averments made in the publication nor approached the Court on account of alleged defamation. In fact, Parul Bakshi and his father were closely related to late Sh. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi and late Sh. Vishwa Mitter was cousin grandfather of Parul Bakshi, but the respondent just with motive to entangle the petitioner in frivolous litigation has filed the Complaint, which on the face of it is not maintainable and the order of issuance of process by the learned trial Magistrate has caused serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, as such, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the said Complaint deserves to be quashed. (iii) It is settled principle of law that the Complaint on the basis of defamation can be filed by the person who has been defamed. The averments made in the Complaint on the fact of it, relates to a dead person and Sh. (iii) It is settled principle of law that the Complaint on the basis of defamation can be filed by the person who has been defamed. The averments made in the Complaint on the fact of it, relates to a dead person and Sh. Parul Bakshi, who was booked by the Police Agency in a criminal case. The respondent without having any locus standi has filed the Complaint and the learned trial Magistrate failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and initiated the proceedings against the petitioner as a matter of course, which is otherwise not warranted under law. It is further submitted that the legislature in its wisdom has given inherent power under Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of the justice. In the present case, the entire proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner by abusing the process of law and even the evidence collected in support of the Complaint by no means support the allegations made in the Complaint and do not disclose any offence against the petitioner. On this count also, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the aforesaid Complaint deserves to be quashed. 5. Other side has not filed any objections. But it has been argued that imputation is defamatory against dead person and complainant being son has right to file complaint as his whole family has been defamed. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and gone through the law on the subject. 7. Before deciding the case in hand, the news item published on 08.02.2008 in STATE TIMES reads as under:- "Late DIG's 'absconding' grandson arrested Grandson of late Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), who according to police was absconding for the last six months, has been arrested for his involvement in an attempt to murder case. The accused had gone underground after attacking a youth a Nariana Mohalla under the jurisdiction of Pacca Danga Police Station. Besides this, the accused was also wanted in another FIR registered in connection with the recovery of sharp edged weapon. Police said that the accused, namely, Parul Bakshi, son of Sudhir Bakshi and grandson of late DIG-Vishwa Mitter Bakshi was wanted in Two FIRs bearing Nos. 26/07 and 137/07. Besides this, the accused was also wanted in another FIR registered in connection with the recovery of sharp edged weapon. Police said that the accused, namely, Parul Bakshi, son of Sudhir Bakshi and grandson of late DIG-Vishwa Mitter Bakshi was wanted in Two FIRs bearing Nos. 26/07 and 137/07. Last year, he had stabbed a youth, namely, Mohammad Shafi S/o. Mohi-Ud-Din, with a sharp edged weapon and managed to abscond. Pacca Danga Police conducted serious of raids, however, he could not be traced out. On specific information, Pacca Danga Police team led by SHO Inspector, K.K. Gupta, SDPO-Swatantar Arora under the supervision of City SP-Sanjay Kotwal conducted raid and arrested the accused. During the interrogation, Parul claimed that he is the grandson of late DIG Vishwa Mitter Bakshi. This probably, he mentioned to impress the police investigators. Vishwa Mitter, who enjoyed good reputation during 60s, was a terror for gangsters in the city of Temples. Police officials conducted interrogation was surprised to know that Parul is the grandson of such a reputed and famous officer in the history of Jammu Police. "Soon after the stabbing, I had managed to flee to Delhi, wherein, in joined Reliance Company", disclosed Parul before the Police. Two Tokas and a Kirch have been recovered from his possession. Parul has been lodged in Pacca Danga Police Station. Message has been flashed to all the Police Stations to ascertain, if any other case was registered against him, said a Police Officer." 8. The relevant part of Complaint filed by respondent reads as under:- "The complainant is the only son of late Sh. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi Ji, who retired as Deputy Inspector General of Police years back. Late Sh. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi Ji had a big name in Police Department and also in the society and enjoyed great reputation and respect amongst his relatives and the society. That in the family of late Sh. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi Ji, the complainant is his only son and Mr. Atulya Bakshi and Mr. Aditya Bakshi are the two grandsons of late Sh. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi. That Late Sh. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi Ji was also known for his dedication and devotion and in recognition of which recently on his 100th Birth Anniversary on 17th January, 2008, a function was organized in Police Head Quarter Jammu, which was chaired by the Director General of Police-Sh. Kuldeep Khoda. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi. That Late Sh. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi Ji was also known for his dedication and devotion and in recognition of which recently on his 100th Birth Anniversary on 17th January, 2008, a function was organized in Police Head Quarter Jammu, which was chaired by the Director General of Police-Sh. Kuldeep Khoda. In his function, the whole family of late Sh. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi Ji was the special guest and the special invitee and the late son of the soil was paid great homage and his good deeds were remembered proudly and with high esteem by the speakers in the said function. On this occasion, the complainant in order to commemorate the function so organized donated 2 Kanals of land totally free of cost to the Police Department. This function was organized by the police on the centenary birth anniversary of late Bakshi Vishwa Mitter Ji. The fact remains neither Mr. Parul Bakshi, the alleged accused, is the grandson of late DIG-Bakshi Vishwa Mitter nor any Sudhir Bakshi was or is the son of late Bakshi Vishwa Mitter Ji. The imputations made in the offending news item by repeatedly using the name of late Bakshi Vishwa Mitter Ji is also a defamation of the late Ex-DIG, besides the same is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family and other near relatives. The complainant being the only son of late Sh. Vishwa Mitter Ji is an aggrieved person. Baskshi Vishwa Mitter Ji had only one son-Sh. Swadesh Mitter Bakshi, the complainant, who further has two sons, namely, Atulya Bakshi and Aditya Bakshi. The said sons of the complainant have neither committed any offence ever in their life nor any FIR has ever been registered against any of them nor ever both or any one among them were arrested by the police. That the said publication in the Newspaper whereas, on one hand is false, on the other hand is very derogatory and defamatory having been made intentionally and with mala fides to lower down the prestige of the family of the late DIG in the eyes of the relatives, family, friends or all other persons, who are admirers of late DIG-Sh. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi Ji. Vishwa Mitter Bakshi Ji. After the said publication in the Newspaper of the accused dated 08th February, 2008, the complainant and all other members of his family including his sons, namely, Atulya Bakshi and Aditya Bakshi, Grandsons of late Sh. Vishwa Mitter Ji., Ex-DIG of Jammu and Kashmir Police has considerably suffered loss to their reputation and honour and the people including the relatives and family friends have started doubting the character and integrity of the complainant and his family members, and has started marginalizing and avoiding the complainant and his sons and other members of his family. By bringing the name of late Bakshi Vishwa Mitter Ji, Ex-DIG most revered figure and a stalwart of Jammu and Kashmir State in the offending news item, the accused has shown disrespect, contempt and high degree of defamation towards him also and this all has been done knowingly, deliberately and with criminal intention to malign not only the late father of the complaint, but also the complainant and other members of his family particularly his sons, who are educated people and are enjoying status and reputation in the society and amongst the friend circle and are highly placed and are earning their livelihood gracefully and honestly. The accused-Sh. Raj Daluja S/o. Sh. Dasondi Ram, Owner, Printer, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of the "STATE TIMES", a daily Newspaper, which is published from its office situated in Amphalla, Jammu have committed offences under Sections 500/501 RPC, for" which he is liable to be tried and convicted." 9. Sections 499 and 500 RPC read as under:- "Section 499, RPC read as under:- Defamation. Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanation 1. It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person, if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2. It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3. Explanation 2. It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3. An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4. No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. 10. For an offence of defamation as defined under Section 499 IPC, the following three essential ingredients are required to be fulfilled:- (i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person; (ii) Such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations; (iii) The said imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned. 11. A claim for compensation for defamation under the civil law may not be maintainable in respect of defamation of a deceased person on the principle that a personal right of action dies with the person. (Actio personalis moritur cum persona). 12. But as per explanation 1 of above section, defamation of a deceased person can legitimately give rise to a criminal prosecution for the offence of defamation against a deceased person. Any person may get triggered to commit offences and thus cause breach of the peace if a deceased member of his family or other near relative of his were defamed. Accepting this reality in life, Explanation-1 has been added to Section 499 IPC to ensure that defamation of a deceased person is also culpable. 13. But for attracting such offence, the offending publication should not only be defamatory to the deceased, but it must also be intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relative, it is stipulated. Every lineal descendant or every person interested in the deceased cannot complain of defamation against the deceased. 13. But for attracting such offence, the offending publication should not only be defamatory to the deceased, but it must also be intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relative, it is stipulated. Every lineal descendant or every person interested in the deceased cannot complain of defamation against the deceased. Firstly, such complainant must be a member of the family of the deceased or must be a near relative of his. The words "family or other near relative" significantly are not defined in Section 499 IPC. Such expressions are not defined in the Indian Penal Code. The expressions "family" and "other relative" are expressions which can have different shades of meaning depending on the circumstances and the purpose which a statutory provision is intended to achieve. 14. In view of above, complainant being SON has locus to file present complaint, if such imputation was made to hurt his feeling and was defamatory to the deceased. In this way, ground taken in this petition that complainant has no right to file complaint as he is not aggrieved person in terms of section 198 Cr.P.C., is overruled and is not sustainable. 15. It is a settled law that to decide whether the imputations amount to defamation, a court has to read the complaint as a whole and find out whether allegations disclosed constitute an offence under Section 499 IPC triable by the Magistrate. 16. Reverting to the facts of the present case, news in question has been published on the basis of police report. Police has statutory power to investigate the alleged case and collect evidence whether factual or documentary. The collection of such evidence may be proved correct or false. The publication only narrates some facts as collected by police during investigation and the news does not state that the contents of the complaint are true. The respondent/complainant have not produced any evidence to prove that the police, after investigation, found that the complaint was false and fabrication. 17. The intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned or his family member, can be gathered by reading whole contents of news in question. For proving criminal intention that imputation was defamatory, it has to be shown by complainant that editor was carrying some animosity with him or against dead person. 18. For proving criminal intention that imputation was defamatory, it has to be shown by complainant that editor was carrying some animosity with him or against dead person. 18. If we read the news item as a whole, I do not find any imputation which has been made with the intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the deceased person or hurt. The intention of publisher appears to be that grandson of such high reputed person has been involved in such heinous offences in two FIRs, which has been published in newspaper was police version. Further, facts of lodging of two FIRs have not been denied by respondent/complainant in his complaint. 19. The freedom of press comes within the ambit of freedom of speech & expression. In a democracy, freedom of press is highly essential as it (the press) acts as a watchdog on the three organs of a democracy viz. the legislature, the executive & the judiciary. But, the freedom of press is not absolute in nature. It is subject to certain restrictions which are mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Despite of these difficulties the press has achieved a lot of success in the recent past. 20. Many cases, if not highlighted by the media, should have remained in darkness. Some of the case like Jessica Lal's case, wherein Manu Sharma, son of a Haryana minister, killed Jessica on April 29, 1999, because she refused to serve him liquor in the restaurant where she was working. The case was closed and all the accused were freed due to lack of evidences, but finally, the case was reopened after media and public outcry, which led to Sharma's conviction. Similarly, in Priyadarshini Mattoo's Case, wherein Santosh Kumar, son of an IPS officer raped and killed his colleague, Priyadarshini Mattoo, a law student in 1996, after she refused his proposal. Ailing and aged father of Priyadarshini got judgment in October 2006, after a long run trial. The media played a significant role in this case as well. Another such case is Nitish Katara's case, in which the media played an important role. In Ruchika's case, Ruchika Girhotra, a 14-year-old tennis player, was molested by then Haryana police IG S.P.S. Rathore in Panchkula in 1990. The media played a significant role in this case as well. Another such case is Nitish Katara's case, in which the media played an important role. In Ruchika's case, Ruchika Girhotra, a 14-year-old tennis player, was molested by then Haryana police IG S.P.S. Rathore in Panchkula in 1990. Three years later, Ruchika killed herself, which her friend and case witness Aradhana attributes to the harassment of Ruchika and her family by those in power. Nineteen years later, Rathore walks away with six months of rigorous imprisonment and a 1000-rupee fine, reportedly due to his old age and the "prolonged trial". This led to public outrage & media played a significant role in it. Later on the Government of India asked the Central Bureau of Investigation to re-investigate the case & the police medals awarded to S.P.S. Rathore was also stripped. A case of Abetment of Suicide under Section 306 of the IPC was also filed against S.P.S. Rathore. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any material in complaint to proceed against accused/petitioner u/s. section 500/501 RPC. Hence cognizance taken under Sections 500 and 501 RPC in the Complaint titled "Swadesh Mitter Bakshi v. Raj Daluja" by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Electricity), Jammu dated 18.02.2008, is set aside. Complaint is quashed. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith.