IMPORTANT POINTS
• 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. 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.
• 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 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 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