J U D G M E N T

1. Petitioners in the above captioned two petitions are seeking quashing of order dated 08.08.2016 as well as Complaint Case No. 631499/2016 (CC No.2614/2016), titled as Lohitaksha Shukla Vs. Business Standard Private Limited & Ors., pending before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, New Delhi.

2. The basis of the complaint is an article titled as “The Long and Short of it” which was published on 18.03.2016 in the newspaper of petitioner- Business Standard and was also available on the website, under the authorship of Mitali Saran.

3. In the first captioned petition [Crl.M.C. 621/2017], petitioner No.1 is Business Standard Private Limited, who is running a newspaper under the name and style of “Business Standard” and petitioner No.2- A.K. Bhattacharya is the Editorial Director. In the said petition, respondent No.1- Lohitaksha Shukla is the complainant and respondent No.2- Mitali Saran is the author of the article.

4. The above captioned second petition [Crl.M.C.2120/2017] is preferred by the author Mitali Saran and respondents therein are the complainant- Lohitaksha Shukla, Business Standard Private Limited and Editorial Director- A.K. Bhattacharya.

5. Since both the petitions pertain to one common complaint and parties to both the petitions are similar, therefore, with the consent of both the sides, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

6. Complainant- Lohitaksha Shukla, who is an Advocate by profession, has averred that he was informed about the factum of publication of the article by his friends. In the complaint, he has alleged that the article is not based on facts and contains some defamatory insinuations against RSS and its members, as it accused members of RSS being oppressive to Indians, mentally disturbed and disrespectful to Indian National Symbols ridden with psycho sexual complexes, practitioners of discrimination based on caste and physically unfit. Complainant has averred that being a member of RSS, his reputation has been adversely affected.

7. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after examining the complainant in the pre-summoning evidence and considering the provisions of Sections 203/204 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 499 IPC, held as under:-

“In view of the same, I find that there is sufficient material for summoning the accused no.1, 2 and 3 u/s 500 IPC. Hence, accused above said are summoned on filing of PF/RC within a week from today along with supply of copy of complaint and documents for as many as accused are summoned for 21.11.2016.”

8. Quashing of the aforesaid summoning order as well as complaint, is sought by petitioners- Business Standard Private Limited and Editorial Director- A.K. Bhattacharya [in Crl.M.C. 621/2017] on the ground that if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an “aggrieved person”, the trial and conviction of an accused in such a case by the Magistrate would be void and illegal. To seek quashing of the complaint, it is submitted that it is absolute abuse of process of law and it has been filed to harass the petitioners. In particular, petitioner No.2 has averred that the allegation of complainant that he was ‘Editor in Chief’ of petitioner No.1 at the time of publication of article is baseless, as he has never been ‘Editor in Chief’ of petitioner No.1.

9. It is averred that the complainant is not “person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. and hence, is not competent to institute a private complaint and even if the complaint is taken on the face value, the same does not disclose any offence whatsoever which falls within the ambit of Sections 499 and 500 IPC.

10. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for Business Standard Private Limited and Editorial Director- A.K. Bhattacharya, relied upon Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decisions in S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 600; decision of this Court