ORDER : The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking to quash Annexure A complaint in ST No.3 of 2017 and Annexure B order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, issued to the petitioners herein. According to the petitioners, the publication per se in not defamatory and the petitioners are not responsible for the publication of the said news article and therefore, they are innocent of the allegations levelled as against them. 2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.25, 23 and 24 respectively in ST.No.3 of 2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners prefer these petitions being aggrieved by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in ST.No.3 of 2017, in taking cognizance as against the petitioners for the offences mentioned above. Annexure A is the copy of the complaint in ST.No.3 of 2017. True copy of the judgment passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.4139/2017 is produced as Annexure B. The first respondent/ complainant has preferred a criminal complaint in ST.No.3 of 2017 under Sections 190 (1) (a) and 199 of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioners and other accused persons for publication of a defamatory news item dated 20.10.2016 in the National English newspaper daily, “The Hindu” titled “Sebastian Paul flays lawyers”. The 2nd respondent had, on 20.10.2016, made a public speech at Thrissur, which according to the first respondent is defamatory to the lawyer community and the same was published in print media by the petitioners' employer, who is accused No.23. Pursuant to the complaint filed by the first respondent, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the petitioners and others by registering the complaint as ST.No.3 of 2017 on its file. According to the petitioners, the publication is not per se defamatory as the article published was merely a reproduction of the speech of accused No.1. The first respondent/complainant has failed to make any specific allegation against the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2087 of 2018, who is the 25th accused, that in what manner, he is responsible for selecting and publishing the said news article. The first respondent/complainant has failed to make any specific allegation against the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2087 of 2018, who is the 25th accused, that in what manner, he is responsible for selecting and publishing the said news article. The Magistrate had, based on the allegations made in the complaint and also relying on the solemn affirmation of the complainant, taken cognizance of the offences against the 25th accused, the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2087 of 2018, and others for the aforementioned offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the above Crl.M.Cs on the grounds that the first respondent/complainant has no locus-standi to prefer a complaint against the 25th accused, since there is nothing personal as against the first respondent, and that the first respondent cannot be treated as an aggrieved person as per Sec.199 of the Cr.P.C.to prefer a complaint for defamation. The continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioners is unnecessary as there is no materials brought as per the complaint to take cognizance against the petitioners. Therefore, they pray for quashing the entire proceedings pending against them. 3. I have heard Sri. K.P. Dandapani, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor, apart from perusing the record. 4. It is alleged that the first accused, a practising lawyer, has made some statement in his speech which was duly published by almost all the Print and Electronic Medias in the State. It is also alleged that the petitioners along with the other media persons were accused of in printing, publishing and telecasting of the said speech as a news item. The first respondent/complainant is a practising lawyer, who is allegedly representing a group of Advocates, who were agitating and protesting against the atrocities alleged to have committed by the media persons. According to the first respondent/complainant, the speech published by the petitioners constitute a defamatory statement and the same is reproduced in paragraph 1 of Annexure A complaint. The grievance of the first respondent/complainant is that the statement made by the second respondent, who is the first accused, has been published by the petitioners and other publishers and the print and electronic media. In the alleged statement, he compares 'street dogs' on the one side with lawyers on the other side. The grievance of the first respondent/complainant is that the statement made by the second respondent, who is the first accused, has been published by the petitioners and other publishers and the print and electronic media. In the alleged statement, he compares 'street dogs' on the one side with lawyers on the other side. He is alleged to have further stated that the menace from street dogs could be checked by adequate treatment, and that he did not mean whether such a treatment should be given to them. The definite case of the first respondent/complainant is that by the term 'them', mentioned in the statement, the first respondent had meant an identifiable class and determinate group of lawyers, who are staging the protest/agitation against some atrocities caused by the media. 5. On these contentions, the principal question for determination is whether the first respondent could be said to be an aggrieved person entitled to maintain the complaint within the meaning of Section 198 Cr.P.C. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue has been considered and disposed of by this Court through Annexure B order in Crl.M.C. Nos. 4139, 5383, 5352 and 6185 of 2017, which was filed by the other accused persons, and has held that the complainant cannot be treated as a person 'aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C., when the group which he is allegedly representing cannot be brought within the category of 'class of persons' within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC. Section 198 of Cr.P.C, thus, 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 in cases of defamation that the rule by permitting only an aggrieved person to move a Magistrate. 6. Section 499 reads thus: 499. 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 expected, to defame that person.” It is quite clear that the aforesaid Section is with regard to the harm to the reputation of any person and the said provision deals with individuals only. Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC reads as follows: “It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.” 7. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners based on Annexure A private complaint is not sustainable, in view of Section 199 of Cr.P.C. Paragraph 1 of Annexure A private complaint gives narration of the speech of the second respondent. 8. The main argument of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is that the offence under Section 501 IPC is not maintainable. As per Section 199 of Cr.P.C, cognizance of complaints for offence of defamation punishable under Chapter XXI of IPC is barred except where the complaint is lodged by an aggrieved and defamed person. When the aggrieved 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. It is profitable to extract Section 199 of Cr.P.C, which reads thus: “199. It is profitable to extract Section 199 of Cr.P.C, which reads thus: “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 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 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.” So, the offences which comes under Chapter XXI of IPC cannot be taken cognizance as it is expressly barred by Section 199 Cr.P.C. Section 499 IPC, which deals with defamation, reads thus: “499. 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 expected, to defame that person.” The definition makes it amply clear that the accused must either intend to harm the reputation of a particular person or reasonably know that his/her conduct could cause such harm. Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC further states that 'it may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. 9. On going through the defamatory statement made in the first paragraph of Annexure A complaint, I find that the first respondent was referring the lawyers as a general class. Further, he has made a comparison of 'street dogs' with lawyers. The first respondent herein is a practising lawyer and there is no evidence to prove that he is representing a collection or general class of lawyers. The last portion of the statement refers the term 'them', and necessarily it has to be interpreted in such a way that he was referring the general community of lawyers and not any particular individuals or a separate category of lawyers. The definite case of the first respondent was that he was representing a particular group of lawyers, who were agitating and protesting against the media. But, the statement reproduced by the complainant in paragraph 1 of Annexure A complaint does not give any indication that the first respondent was referring a particular group of lawyers or a group or a collection of individual lawyers, who form a separate class from a general community of lawyers. In the present case, the first respondent/complainant cannot be properly described as a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 199(1) of Cr.P.C as there was no specific injury caused to him or any of them. 10. In M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 552 , it is held that “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. 10. In M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 552 , it is held that “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.” 11. As per the decision cited above, it has been borne out that only an identifiable aggrieved person can approach to rectify his grievance. A restriction was imposed under Section 199 Cr.P.C so as to curtail the filing of the cases. 12. In Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. and anr. v. State of West Bengal and another [2005 Crl.L.J. 1126], it is held that the words or imputation complained of must relate to some particular person or persons whose identity can be established. It is alleged in the petition of complainant that the alleged defamation have been made against the lawyer of the courts as a class which cannot constitute an offence against a collection of persons who can be defamed by the operation of Explanation 2 of Section 499 of IPC. It is further held that the complainant must be said to be an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199 of Cr.P.C. 13. In G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa [ (1972) 2 SCC 680 ], it is held thus: “Section 499 of the Penal Code, which defines defamation, lays down that whoever 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 such person, is said to defame that person. This part of the section makes defamation in respect of an individual an offence. But Explanation (2) to the section lays down the rule that it may amount to 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 falls within the definition of defamation. The language of the Explanation is wide, and therefore, besides a company or an association, any collection of persons would be covered by it. A defamatory imputation against a collection of persons thus falls within the definition of defamation. The language of the Explanation is wide, and therefore, besides a company or an association, any collection of persons would be covered by it. But such a collection of persons must be an identifiable body so that it is possible to say with definiteness that a group of particular persons, as distinguished. from the rest of the community, was defamed Therefore, in a case where Explanation (2) is resorted to, the identity of the company or the association or the collection of persons must be established so as to be relatable to the defamatory words or imputations. Where a writing inveighs against mankind in a general or against a particular order of men, e.g., men of gown, it is no libel. It must descend to particulars and individual-, to make it a libel” 14. As per the dictum laid down in the above decisions, 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. In Asha Parekh and others v. State of Bihar and others [1977 Cr.L.J. 21], the question as to whether there could be a defamation of the lawyers as a whole by giving a picturisation of a lawyer in a film was considered and it was held that advocates as a class are incapable of being defamed. On going through Annexure A complaint, I find that the first respondent/complainant wanted to represent “a sector of lawyers in Kerala”. Eventhough the first respondent has complained that the second respondent has in his speech defamed a set of lawyers and that will not sufficient to prove that he has used defamatory words regarding a set of lawyers or identifiable class of lawyers. It was further stated in paragraph 5 of the complaint that the speech refers to a determinate and identifiable section/group of lawyers who were agitating against media personnel. But, there is absolutely no evidence to prove that any such association of lawyers were formed to agitate against the media personnel. It was further stated in paragraph 5 of the complaint that the speech refers to a determinate and identifiable section/group of lawyers who were agitating against media personnel. But, there is absolutely no evidence to prove that any such association of lawyers were formed to agitate against the media personnel. When there is no evidence to prove that an identifiable section or group of persons were formed to agitate against the media person, that will not be treated as a collection of persons within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC. It is true that the first respondent/complainant has mentioned that the defamatory statement was made by the second respondent against agitating lawyers for whom he has represented. But, there is no identifiable or set of class of lawyers. The definition of 'collection of persons' within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC will not stand. The first respondent has no case that the offending publication was referred to defame him or any other identifiable individuals. So, the mere statement that the lawyers who are agitating against media person form a collection of persons or form a determinate group of lawyers will not attract the Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC. In fact, in Narasimhan's case, the Apex Court has sufficiently illumine the path resorted to the legal action. Section 199 Cr.P.C engrafts an exception to the general rule. In relation to offences covered by Section 499 to 502 IPC occurring chapter XXI of IPC only an aggrieved person can move the Magistrate. This Section is mandatory. If a complaint is filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, it is not maintainable. Under Section 499 read with Explanation 2, a defamatory imputation against a collection of persons would fall within the definition of defamation. The language of the 'explanation' is not doubt wide. Nevertheless, the collection of the persons must be an identifiable body so that it is possible to say with definiteness that the particular group of persons, as distinguished from the rest of community, was defamed. The identity of the collection of persons must be established as relatable to the defamatory words or imputations. Nevertheless, the collection of the persons must be an identifiable body so that it is possible to say with definiteness that the particular group of persons, as distinguished from the rest of community, was defamed. The identity of the collection of persons must be established as relatable to the defamatory words or imputations. In fact, the first respondent/complainant cannot be treated as a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 199 Cr.P.C. Eventhough he has stated that he was representing a group of persons, he cannot be brought within the meaning of explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC. The first respondent has miserably failed to establish that he comes under Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC and therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief. Section 198 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 in such cases by the Magistrate would be void and illegal. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs are allowed and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.T. No. 3 of 2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram are hereby quashed.