ORDER: Accused 2 and 3 in S.T. No. 1876 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate III, Kottayam are the petitioners. They have filed this application under Sec.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in the said S.T. No. 1876 of 2000. They along with three others are the accused in the said case. It is inter alia alleged in the complaint that they have committed the offence punishable under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the complaint against them is that they have indulged in publication of malicious and defamatory imputations and insinuations against the complainant a person employed in Dubai. The complaint was filed by him through his power of attorney. The crux of the contention is that the holder of the power of attorney is not a person aggrieved by the offence and is therefore not competent to file the complaint.

2. The only question that falls for consideration in this criminal miscellaneous case is hence whether the complainant/first respondent herein is competent to file the complaint through his power of attorney holder.

3. The relevant statutory provision is Sec. 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I extract below Sec. 199(1) and its proviso.

"199. Prosecution for defamation: (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chap.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.

4. The complainant in the instant case is certainly the first respondent Thomas J. Padiyath. The said complainant has preferred this complaint through his power of attorney holder one Jacob J. Padiyath. If the said power of attorney holder Jacob J. Padiyath were to be reckoned as the complainant, certainly the complaint would be null, void and unsustainable and the proceedings will have to be quashed. There can be no doubt whatsoever on that aspect. The said power of attorney holder on his own right is certainly not a person aggrieved by the defamatory publication.

5. But it is very evident that the complainant is the first respondent Thomas J. Padiyath and not his power of attorney holder Jacob J. Padiyath. There can also be no contention whatsoever that Thomas J. Padiyath, the complainant is not a person aggrieved by the publication in question. I am not in these circumstances adverting to the precedents which have been cited at the bar to show that only a person aggrieved can file such a complaint. According to me Sec. 199(1) (like Sec. 198) only attempts to ensure that complaints can be entertained only at the instance of persons who are aggrieved by the offences specified. It does not according to me deal with the procedure for filing of complaints. In this view of the matter I hold that complaint filed in this case reckoned as a complaint filed by Thomas J. Padiyath the first respondent is certainly maintainable.

6. The complaint has of course not been presented before Court by the first respondent/complainant in person. He has preferred the complaint through his power of attorney holder. The question then is whether a complaint under Sec. 199(1) can be preferred by the power of attorney holder of a complainant.

7. The decision in Hamsa v. Ibrahim, (1993)2 K.L.T. 698 is in this context crucial. I extract below the relevant portions from paragraphs 7 to 9 of the said judgment:

"7. In considering the question involved here legal position regarding the right of a person to appoint another as his agent has to be understood at least in a general manner. According to the Law of England "every person who is sui juris has a right to appoint an agent for any purpose

Click Here to Read the rest of this document