ORDER

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, apart from other reliefs, has prayed for the following reliefs :

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction quashing Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (and consequently also Sections 501 and 502 IPC) as ultra-vires the provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitutional;

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order of direction quashing Sections 1999(1) and 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as ultra-vires the provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution;

c. In the alternative to prayers (a) and (b) above, interpret, read-down and issue directions and guidelines under Article 142 of the Constitution of India as this hon'ble Court may deem necessary and appropriate to reconcile Sections 179; 204(I); and 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Articles 14, 19 an 21 of the Constitution including but not limited to :

i. That the territorial applicability of Section 179 of the CrPC may be limited to the proper location where the journalistic publication is made (as per the declaration made by the newspaper under the provisions of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867),as opposed to where it is circulated or read/viewed; and in the case of broadcasts and on-line publications (which do not fall within the purview of the PRB Act) territorial jurisdiction should vest in the place where the registered office of the broadcaster/on-line publication is situate;

ii. That the postponement of process under Section 202 of CrPC is mandatory in cases arising under Section 459 of CrPC is mandatory in cases arising under Section 499 of the IPC;

iii. That any Court must consider the applicability of the exceptions to Section 499 of the IPC at the state of issuance of process under Section 204 of the CrPC.”

2. It is submitted by Mr. Bhamani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-foundation, that apart from challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the association, as the relief clause would show, has challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 199(1) and 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further prayed for reconciliation of various provisions, namely, Sections 179, 204(I) and 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so that they would come in accord with Articles 14, 18 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. In course of his submissions, he has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in S. Khushboo vs. Kannimmal & Anr. [(2010 5 SCC 600], especially paragraphs 37, 40 and 41 which read as under :

“37. It may be reiterated here that in respect of the offence of defamation, Section 199 Cr.PC 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 those 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 complainants can be properly described as `persons aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 199(1)(b) Cr.PC. 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.

xxx xxx xxx

40. A complaint under Sections 499, 500 and 501 IPC was filed in response to this report. Like the present case, the Court had to consider whether the complainant had the proper legal standing to bring such a complaint. The Court did examine Section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (analogous to Section 19