ORDER : (K. LAKSHMAN, J.) Heard Sri M.Pavan Kashyap, learned counsel representing Sri Venkat Reddy Kodumuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.134 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Hyderabad. 3. Petitioner herein is accused No.1. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 500 and 501 read with 34 of IPC. 4. Perusal of record would reveal that respondent No.1 has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before learned Magistrate alleging that the petitioner herein - accused No.1 addressed a press conference at Hyderabad on 12.04.2016 stating that “Asaduddin Owaisi (President of Majlis and AIMIM) shall only contest the Places in Election where financial benefit lies”. The same are defamatory in nature to defame the political party i.e., AIMIM. Respondent No.1 is the Joint Secretary of the said party. Therefore, the said allegation made by the petitioner herein is defamatory in nature not only against the President and also against respondent No.2. 5 . It is further alleged that accused No.2 knowing fully well that the statement made by the petitioner - accused No.1 is defamatory to defame the complainant’s political party, AIMIM, the complainant and his President Mr.Asaduddin Owaisi’s image in the general public had published the said statement without any cogent evidence. Accused No.2 ought to have cautiously investigated the statement made by accused No.1 mentioned above. 6. It is further alleged by respondent No.1-complainant that accused Nos.1 and 2 have passed defamatory remarks against the complainant’s political party and its party leaders in the past. It is further alleged that due to defamatory and false news item on 13.04.2016 by accused No.2 based on the statement of accused No.1, the complainant was shocked after reading the said false and defamatory news and has undergone mental trauma, as he is Joint Secretary of the said party. He has received hundreds of phone calls by the people, friends, relatives, family members etc. Subsequently various people met the complainant personally expressing their sympathy on the said false and defamatory news and various persons passed sarcastic comments. He has received hundreds of phone calls by the people, friends, relatives, family members etc. Subsequently various people met the complainant personally expressing their sympathy on the said false and defamatory news and various persons passed sarcastic comments. Thus, accused Nos.1 and 2 have accused the complainant’s political party and its President Mr.Asaduddin Owaisi for the act which they have not done. Further, the said statement was unwarranted and uncalled for, as such the complainant was defamed by accused Nos.1 and 2. 7. Challenging the said proceedings, petitioner - accused No.1 filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the same. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that respondent No.1 is not an aggrieved party in terms of Section 199 of Cr.P.C. The contents of complaint lack the ingredients of Section - 499 of IPC. Respondent No.1 has filed another complaint with regard to some other incident against the petitioner herein vide CC SR No.2598 of 2017 and the same was dismissed vide order, dated 22.02.2018 by learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. He has also filed a suit vide O.S.No.491 of 2017 against the petitioner herein for perpetual injunction restraining him and his henchmen from uttering any words against respondent No.1 and his political party. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.783 of 2023 in the said suit under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to reject the said plaint. Vide order, dated 30.01.2024, learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowed the said application and rejected the plaint. There is no challenge to the aforesaid two orders. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Kerala High Court in M.P.Narayana Pillai v. M.P.Chacko , [MANU/KE/0208/1986] 10. Whereas, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would contend that this Court cannot conduct mini-trial in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The allegations were made against the political party to which respondent No.1 is a Joint Secretary. There are many triable issues which the trial Court has to consider during the trial. There is no challenge to the cognizance order. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present petition. 11. There are many triable issues which the trial Court has to consider during the trial. There is no challenge to the cognizance order. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present petition. 11. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that Section 499 of IPC deals with ‘defamation’ and the same is extracted below:- “ 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. 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.— 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.” 12. Section 199 of Cr.P.C. deals with ‘prosecution for defamation’ and the same is extracted below:- “(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 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.” 13. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that respondent No.1 claiming that he is a Joint Secretary of AIMIM party and he has no locus to file the said complaint. He is not an aggrieved party. He has not filed any authorization from the said political party to file the said complaint. 14. There is no dispute that prosecution can be initiated by way of filing a complaint by a person aggrieved by the offence. Now, the question is whether respondent No.1 is an aggrieved person or not, to file the said complaint. 15. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that even according to the complaint filed by respondent No.1 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, the allegation made against the petitioner is that he has addressed a press conference and made the aforesaid comments. The aforesaid comments are against Mr. Asaduddin Owaisi, President of AIMIM party. Therefore, either Mr.Asaduddin Owaisi, President of the said party or any person authorized by him or the said party has to file the aforesaid complaint. 16. In the present complaint filed by respondent No.1 under Section 200 Cr.P.C., he has not stated about the authorization, if any, obtained by him. He has only stated that he is Joint Secretary of the said party. In the complaint, the complainant stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 have passed defamatory remarks against the complainant’s political party and its leaders. 17. Perusal of record would reveal that respondent No.1 has filed copies of news item published in accused No.2 Newspaper, legal notice and postal receipts etc. Except that, he has not filed any other documents. In the complaint, the complainant stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 have passed defamatory remarks against the complainant’s political party and its leaders. 17. Perusal of record would reveal that respondent No.1 has filed copies of news item published in accused No.2 Newspaper, legal notice and postal receipts etc. Except that, he has not filed any other documents. Perusal of record would also reveal that learned Magistrate has recorded the statements of LWs.2 and 3, who are the business people and they have claimed that they were shocked by reading the said news item published in accused No.2 news paper and the same are defamatory. They have visited the house of respondent No.1, Joint Secretary of the said political party on 13.04.2016 and also observed that there were many people gathered near his house. They have surrounded the complainant and passed sarcastic comments. 18. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 is not an aggrieved party. He has not filed any authorization or any document. He has not stated that the President of said political party or the said political party authorized him to file the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 19. In P.Shankar Rao v. The State of A.P. , [Manu/TL/0138.2022] this Court considered the said aspect i.e., who has to file the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In the said case Mr. M.Subba Rao, Assistant I.G. of Police, Administration, has filed a complaint alleging that some imputations were made by the petitioner therein against the D.G.P. of the State and his wife. The said Subba Rao is not an aggrieved party and he has no locus to file the complaint as no imputations were made against him. Therefore, the complaint filed by him for the aforesaid offences under Section 499 of IPC and 200 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. This Court placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Kerala High Court in Sasikumar B. Menon v. S.Vijayan , [1998 Crl.L.J. 3973] . This Court also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Kerala High Court in Karunakaran v. Jayasooryan , [1992 Cri LJ 3540]. 20. In M.P.Narayana , the Kerala High Court considered the aggrieved party and mandatory requirement of Section 199 of Cr.P.C. It also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.Narasimhan v. T.V.Chokkappa, 1973 Crl.LJ 52. . 21. 20. In M.P.Narayana , the Kerala High Court considered the aggrieved party and mandatory requirement of Section 199 of Cr.P.C. It also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.Narasimhan v. T.V.Chokkappa, 1973 Crl.LJ 52. . 21. In the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, coming to the case on hand, as discussed supra, respondent No.1 is the Joint Secretary of AIMIM party. There are no allegations/imputations against him in the said C.C. The imputations are against Mr. Asaduddin Owaisi, President of AIMIM and AIMIM Party stated that they shall only contest the places in election, where financial benefit lies. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contents of the said complaint and statements of LWs.1 to 3 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.1 has no locus to file the said complaint. 22. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.134 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class magistrate for Excise, Hyderabad, is an abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. 23. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.134 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class magistrate for Excise, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein – accused No.1 alone. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.