The main legal point established in this judgment is that for a defamation case to be valid, the complaint must include precise details of the imputation or objectionable words alleged to be defamatory.

Kalyanam, who worked as Private Secretary to Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of our Nation, for about four years, having aggrieved over the issuance of process against him in the private complaint filed by one Ramesh under Section 500 I.P.C., has approached this Court through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking for quashing of the above said proceedings.

2. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and the Editor of The New Indian Express under Section 500 I.P.C. stating that The New Indian Express published an article carrying the title as "Mahatma's Secretary seeks peace" at the instance of the first accused Kalyanam containing the imputation indicating that the Mahatma's Secretary is struggling for peace from the hands of the hands of the complainant and since the said article containing the imputation published in The New Indian Express dated 13.4.2000 would harm the reputation of the complainant, both the accused are liable to be punished for the offence of defamation under Section 500 I.P.C.

3. This private complaint was taken on file on 19.10.2000 after recording sworn statement from the complainant and the process was issued to both Kalyanam (A1), the petitioner, and the Editor of The New Indian Express (A2). In the sworn statement, the complainant stated that on 13.4.2000, The New Indian Express published an article captioned as "Mahatma's Secretary seeks peace" containing imputation to harm the reputation of the complainant, who is the member of several Clubs, and his wife and the publication was made at the instigation of A1.

4. The main point which has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that there is no details of the averment either in the complaint or in the sworn statement with reference to the imputation which was said to be contained in the article published in The New Indian Express dated 13.4.2000 and as such, the complaint does not indicate any ingredient for the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. and hence, the proceedings arising out of the said private complaint are liable to be quashed.

5. I heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.

6. I have gone through the complaint and the sworn statement.

7. Both in the complaint and in the sworn statement, it is merely mentioned that the article published in The New Indian Express dated 13.4.2000 at the instigation of A1 would harm the reputation of the complainant and hence, both the accused are liable to be punished. However, no particulars of imputation have been given both in complaint and in sworn statement indicating the imputation which would attract the ingredient of Section 500 I.P.C.

8. It is settled law that a person cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 500 I.P.C. merely because some article or news item is published attributing certain utterances to that person. Unless it is shown that the imputation or objectionable words had been used by the accused and only at his instance, the said objectionable words were published, the accused cannot be prima facie said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C.

9. In a trial for defamation, it is quite essential that the details of imputation containing the words alleged to be defamatory in character should be precisely set out in the complaint. It is the said imputation or the words so set out in the complaint that will constitute the foundation for defamation.

10. In a defamation case, the only document containing the accusation of offences supplied to the accused is the complaint. By issuance of process to the accused, he is called upon to answer the accusation relating to the imputation containing defamation mentioned in the complaint. In other words, cause of action is the accusation with reference to the imputation alone. What is required further is only adducing evidence by the complainant in support of those accusations. Therefore, the accused in entitled to know what are the accusatio