Point of Law - Words "association or collection of persons" mentioned in Section 499 have to be understood in conjunction with the expression "person aggrieved" in Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though the two expressions are in two different codes.

ORDER :

This Crl.M.C has been filed by the accused in C.C No.931 of 2013 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam, to quash the entire proceedings in that case, which was initiated on a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent, who is the State Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 153A, 500 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The 1st respondent filed Annexure-I complaint alleging that the article written by A8, translated by A9 and published by 1st accused Mathrubhoomi weekly contained imputations, which were defamatory and misleading, lowering the reputation of RSS in the public. Moreover, the article published was capable of promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, prejudicial to communal harmony. The complaint was filed against nine persons including Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly, its printer, publisher, editor etc.

3. Learned ACJM (EO), Ernakulam conducted an enquiry and took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 against R2 to R9, and took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 502 IPC also, against R2. Since the 1st accused-Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly was not a legal entity, it was not arrayed as an accused. During enquiry no offence was made out against the accused under Section 120B and 153A of IPC and so, no cognizance was taken for those offences. So, only against R2 to R9, summons was ordered arraying them as A1 to A8, taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of IPC.

4. In the Crl.M.C, the 1st petitioner is Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly against which no cognizance was taken by the learned ACJM, and no summons was issued. No cognizance was taken against A2 to A9 for offences punishable under Sections 120B and 153A of IPC. So, those aspects need not be reopened or reconsidered in this petition.

5. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent-State Secretary of RSS has no locus standi to represent the organisation of RSS. They contended that it cannot be said that RSS is a definite and determinable body. Only if there is a definite association or collection of persons capable of being identified, it could be said that the defamatory matter applies to all the members of that organisation. The petitioners never intended to defame or injure the feelings of the 1st respondent or anybody else, by making such a publication in the century old reputed weekly. The article published in Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly was originally based on a research study based on facts, findings and materials collected by the celebrated author, academician and political evaluator Sri.Badri Raina and it was translated and published by the petitioners. It was based on actual facts and figures, details and data, inferences and information, personal opinions, evaluations and on a strong conviction for the public good. The article reflects the in-depth analytical research made by Sri.Badri Raina. The role and duty of the media is to inform the readers about the state of affairs in and around the country. The press is free to engage or depend on scholars and eminent personalities to disseminate information on matters of public importance. No socio-political organisation including RSS is beyond public scrutiny. So, the article published in Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly did not contain any defamatory materials to cause damage to the organisation, RSS. Moreover, the averments in Annexure-I complaint are not sufficient to prove the essential ingredients of Section 499 of IPC, and there is nothing to show that the publication of imputation has been made with the intention, knowledge or belief, that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned. So, according to the petitioners, learned ACJM (EO), Ernakulam went wrong in taking cognizance, and issuing summons against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 500,