Telangana High Court
A. Revanth Reddy, vs The State Of Telangana, on 1 August, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
CORAM:
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.5823 OF 2025
% Delivered on: 01-08-2025
Between:
# Mr. A. Revanth Reddy .. Petitioner
Vs.
$ The State of Telangana, rep.by its
Public Prosecutor & another .. Respondents
! For Petitioner : Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy,
Learned Senior Counsel
^ For Respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor
^ For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Devineni Vijay Kumar
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Cases Referred :
1. (2014) 9 SCC 1 15. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6005
2. (2006) 7 SCC 1 16. (2016) 7 SCC 221
3. (2023) 15 SCC 401 17. (1981) 3 SCC 208
4. (2023) 15 SCC 443 18. 1968 SCC OnLine Del 117
5. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 19. (2012) 5 SCC 424
6. (1977) 2 SCC 699 20. (2013) 14 SCC 44
7. (1998) 5 SCC 749 21. (1976) 3 SCC 736
8. (2018) 1 SSC 615 22. 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 9151
9. 2023 SCC OnLine All 14 23. (2001) 6 SCC 30
10. 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 209 24. 1977 SCC OnLine Bom 146
11. 2019 SCC OnLine HP 721 25. 1983 SCC OnLine Mad 486
12. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 719 26. 2008 SCC OnLine Kar 625
13. (1972) 2 SCC 680 27. 2024 SCC OnLine TS 13
14. MANU/TL/0179/2024
28. 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 5317
29. (2012) 12 SCC 72
2
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5823 OF 2025
ORDER
1. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings in
C.C. No. 312 of 2024 by setting aside the order dated 23.08.2024 in the said
C.C. passed by Principal Special Judicial First-Class Magistrate for Excise
Cases at Hyderabad (hereinafter ‘Trial Court’).
2. Heard Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. T.
Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner – Accused, Mr.
Devineni Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Hamsa
Devineni, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 – Complainant and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3.1. The Petitioner herein is the Chief Minister for the State of Telangana and
is a member of the Indian National Congress, a national political party.
Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter ‘the Complainant’) is the Bharatiya Janata
Party (Telangana) represented by its General Secretary Mr. Kasam
Venkateshwarlu. It claims to be the State Unit of the Bharatiya Janata
Party, also a national political party.
3
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
3.2. Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint dated 10.05.2024 under Sections
199 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter ‘CrPC‘)
against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner delivered an ‘illegal,
false, defamatory and provocative’ speech against Respondent No.2 on
04.05.2024.
3.3. The following excerpts of the speech, according to the Complainant, are
defamatory and promotes enmity:
– ‘BJP government will abolish all SC, ST and BC
reservations’
– ‘I have been saying, if we give 400 seats to BJP, they
will change the constitution, they will abolish
reservations, that’s why they are asking for 400
seats’
– ‘there is a conspiracy to cancel SC, ST, BC
reservations for Dalits, tribals and weaker sections’
– ‘BJP is planning to change the constitution, your
constitution is going to be abolished’
– ‘the reservations you are being given are going to be
cancelled’
– ‘if you vote for BJP today, our reservations are
going to be abolished’
– ‘BJP national general secretary, a person called
Dushyant Kumar Guatham said in an interview
yesterday that as soon as BJP forms government,
4
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025we will change the preamble in the constitution, we
will change the constitution’
– ‘what I have been saying from so many days, the
allegations I made, your BJP national general
secretary, Dushyant Kumar Guatham, has said
clearly and in his official capacity, that as soon as
BJP forms government, we will change the
constitution’
– ‘I am asking the highly learned Kishan Reddy, your
general secretary is saying that we will change the
constitution right…’
– ‘now you decide if you should be beaten for telling
lies or your general secretary should be beaten for
saying we will change the constitution’3.4. Relying on the above alleged speech, the Complainant contends that, the
Petitioner connived with the Telangana Congress Party ‘to develop a fake
and dubious political narrative’ that the BJP will end reservations. These
remarks, according to the Complainant, are defamatory and promote
enmity between communities. Further, it was alleged that, the Petitioner’s
speech was watched and shared online by innumerable people.
According to the complainant, the contents of the speech were widely
reported in print, electronic, and social media. The alleged defamatory
and divisive speech, according to the Complainant, lowered the
reputation of the BJP as a political party. The complainant sought
5
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
registration of a criminal case against the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 120A, 124A, 153, 153A, 153B, 171C, 171G,
499, 505, and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (‘hereinafter ‘the IPC‘) and
Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter ‘the
RP Act, 1951’).
3.5. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Complainant was examined through
its State General Secretary, Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu on two dates viz.,
05.07.2024 and 11.12.2024. It has also examined Mr. Akkaladevi Ajay
Kumar on 05.07.2024 as a witness.
3.6. On consideration of the contents of the said complaint and statements of
witnesses, vide docket order dated 21.08.2024 in C.C. No.312 of 2024,
the learned Trial Court ordered notice to the Petitioner – Accused holding
that a prima facie case was made out against the Petitioner for the
offences under Section 499 of the IPC and Section 125 of the RP Act,
1951. The learned Trial Court also directed its office to register the case
as C.C.
3.7. Challenging the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 and the entire criminal
proceedings in C.C. No. 312 of 2024, the Petitioner has filed the present
quash petition.
6
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
4.1. The allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case under
Section 499 of the IPC and Section 125 of the RP Act, 1951.
4.2. Political speeches cannot be made a subject matter of defamation. A
political party cannot claim to be entitled to reputation in terms of Section
499 of the IPC. In democracy, elections fundamentally involve parties
seeking to lower the reputation of other parties. Therefore, bringing
political speeches under the purview of criminal defamation would
destroy democracy.
4.3. The alleged speech amounts to a routine activity of a political leader, i.e.,
to criticize the opposition political party. The same cannot be termed as
defamation.
4.4. Any imputation during elections that the opposition party’s coming to
power will jeopardize voters’ interests is part of a political speech. The
same is protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Reliance is placed on Manoj Narula v. Union of India 1 and Kuldip
Nayar v. Union of India 2.
1
. (2014) 9 SCC 1
2
. (2006) 7 SCC 1
7
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
4.5. The alleged defamatory speech against a political rival is not a factual
statement with a determinable truth value. The same is a narrative to
criticize the opposition. Therefore, such vague and general political
speeches cannot be termed defamatory. Reliance is placed on Manoj
Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia.3
4.6. The alleged defamatory speech is covered by first, second, third, sixth,
eighth, ninth, and tenth exceptions to Section 499 of the IPC. Whether
such exceptions cover the alleged defamatory statements can be
considered in a quash petition. In this regard, the Petitioner relies on
Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi4.
4.7. Admittedly, the Complainant has stated that multiple complaints have
already been lodged in relation to the alleged speech. Given such
multiple proceedings, the Trial Court ought not have taken cognizance.
4.8. None of the witnesses have stated as to how the alleged speech was
defamatory and as to how the Complainant’s reputation was lowered.
4.9. Ingredients of Section 125 of the RP Act, 1951 are lacking. The same
only comes into play where enmity is promoted on the ground of
‘religion, race, caste, community, or language’. The Complainant’s main
3
. (2023) 15 SCC 401
4
. (2023) 15 SCC 443
8
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
allegation was that a fake political narrative was being created. The
complaint does not establish any enmity or hatred caused.
4.10. The complaint is filed with a motive to harass, and with a political
vendetta. The same constitutes abuse of process of law. Therefore, it
deserves to be quashed. Reliance is placed on State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal 5, State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy 6, and Pepsi Foods
Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate7.
4.11. The impugned order dated 23.08.2024 fails to record any reasons as to
how a prima facie case is made out. No reasons were assigned except
stating that on perusal of statements of PWs.1 and 2, a prima facie case
was made out.
4.12. The complaint has been filed by Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu without any
authorization from the Complainant. No such authorization or document
has been filed to show that Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu could have
represented the Complainant.
4.13. Respondent No.2 – Complainant i.e., Bharatiya Janatha Party (Telangana)
is not an existing entity and there is no party by name Bharatiya Janatha
5
. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
6
. (1977) 2 SCC 699
7
. (1998) 5 SCC 749
9
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
Party (Telangana). Without considering the said fact, learned trial Court
passed order 22.08.2024, issued notice to the Petitioner – Accused.
4.14. No substantial proof has been filed to show that the Complainant actually
lost votes in the State of Telangana due to the alleged speech made by the
Petitioner.
4.15. Any complaint or allegation under the RP Act, 1951, has to be made
before the Election Commission of India, which is the appropriate
authority. The Complainant cannot invoke the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and cannot file a complaint under Section – 200 of the
CrPC.
5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO. 2/ COMPLAINANT
5.1. The alleged speech was made as part of a ‘strategic and well planned’
political narrative to confuse the SC, ST, and OBC voters.
5.2. The alleged false statements of the Petitioner have created mistrust, ill-
will, and fear among the voters. Further, the said statements have brought
the BJP into disrepute and have caused damage to the BJP in the 2024
General Elections.
10
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
5.3. Relying on Mohd. Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K 8, it was contended that
the ingredients of Section 499 have been satisfied and the Trial Court was
justified in taking cognizance.
5.4. Relying on Arvind Kejriwal v. State of U.P. 9, it was argued that Section
125 of the RP Act, 1951 is attracted, as the alleged speech promotes
enmity between different classes of citizens. The Petitioner’s categorical
appeal to the voters of SC, ST, and OBC communities that, the BJP will
end reservations is sufficient prima facie proof of creation of hatred and
ill-will in these communities. However, the matter was carried to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (Crl.) No.13279 of 2024 and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the matter vide order dated 30.09.2024.
5.5. The alleged speech is ‘defamatory per se’. The alleged remarks that, ‘BJP
will abolish SC, ST & BC reservations’ is defamatory on the face of it.
Reliance was placed on Rohini Singh v. State of Gujarat10 and
Parmodh Sharma v. Onkar Singh Thakur 11.
5.6. The Petitioner cannot contend that, political parties stand on a different
footing and are not entitled to reputation. Relying on Arvind Kejriwal v.
8
. (2018) 1 SSC 615
9
. 2023 SCC OnLine All 14
10
. 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 209
11
. 2019 SCC OnLine HP 721
11
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
State12and G. Narsimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa 13, it was contended that
political parties are recognised by the Constitution of India and are an
‘association of people’ under Section 499 of the IPC. Therefore, they are
entitled to reputation and initiate proceedings against any individual for
defamation.
5.7. A political party, like the Complainant, is an identifiable body. It can be
an ‘aggrieved person’ under Explanation 2 of Section 499 of the IPC.
Therefore, a criminal complaint against defamation is maintainable at the
instance of a political party. Reliance is placed on Telugu Desam Party
v. Union of India 14 and Shashi Tharoor v. State (NCT of Delhi) 15.
5.8. Relying on Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India 16, it was contended
that right to free speech cannot mean that a person can defame another
person.
5.9. A defence of good faith cannot be pleaded by the Petitioner as he failed to
exercise care and caution. Further, the repetition of offensive statements
disentitles him to claim the benefits of exceptions to Section 499 of the
12
. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 719
13
. (1972) 2 SCC 680
14
. MANU/TL/0179/2024
15
. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6005
16
. (2016) 7 SCC 221
12
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
IPC. Reliance is placed on Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia 17and
Paras Dass Son of Jugal Kishore v. Paras Dass Son of Baji Nath. 18
5.10. The contents of the complaint dated 10.05.2024 make out a prima facie
case of defamation. The learned Magistrate, only after satisfying that a
prima facie case is made out issued notice to the Petitioner – Accused vide
order dated 23.08.2024. At this stage, the magistrate is not expected to
give detailed reasons. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order
dated 23.08.2024. Reliance is placed on Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT
of Delhi)19.
5.11. The discretion of the learned Magistrate cannot be lightly interfered with.
Reliance is placed on Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra20 and
5.12. The representative of the Complainant i.e., Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu
was authorised under law to represent. No formal authorization is
required under Section 200 of the CrPC to file a complaint alleging
defamation.
17
. (1981) 3 SCC 208
18
. 1968 SCC OnLine Del 117
19
. (2012) 5 SCC 424
20
. (2013) 14 SCC 44
21
. (1976) 3 SCC 736
13
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
5.13. Relying on Shashi Tharoor (Supra), it is contended that BJP is a
determinate and identifiable body. If a well-defined class is defamed,
each and every member of such class can maintain a complaint. It is
pertinent to note that, Shashi Tharoor (Supra) was challenged before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (Crl.) No.12360 of 2024 and the same
is pending, wherein the High Court’s judgment was stayed vide order
dated 10.09.2024.
5.14. Further, the ‘aggrieved person’ in the present case is the BJP Telangana
Unit. It is being represented by the State General Secretary, who is one of
its senior-most functionaries. Therefore, the question of authorization to
maintain the subject complaint does not arise. Reliance is placed on
Maridhas v. S.R.S. Umari Shankar 22, to contend that a complaint for
defamation against a political party can only be filed by a high-ranking
functionary.
5.15. The complaint, when read as a whole, makes out a case to take
cognizance under Section 499 of the IPC and Section 125 of the RP Act,
1951.
22
. 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 9151
14
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
6. It is pertinent to note that, a complaint against criminal defamation under
Section 499 of the IPC can only be lodged in accordance with Section 199
of the CrPC. For the sake of convenience, the said provisions are extracted
below:
199. Prosecution for defamation.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable
under Chapter 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.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any
offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860) is alleged to have been committed against a person
who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India,
the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the
Administrator of a Union Territory, or a Minister of the Union or
of a State, or any other public servant employed in connection
with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his
conduct in the discharge of his public functions a Court of
Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case
being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the
Public Prosecutor.
(3) Every complaint referred to in sub-section (2) shall set forth
the facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such
15
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to
give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been
committed by him.
(4) No complaint under sub-section (2) shall be made by the
Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction –
(a) of the State Government, in the case of a person who is or has
been the Governor of that State or a Minister of that
Government;
(b) of the State Government, in the case of any other public
servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State;
(c) of the Central Government, in any other case.
(5) No Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence
under sub-section (2) unless the complaint is made within six
months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have
been committed.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person
against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to
make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate
having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take
cognizance of the offence upon such complaint.
499. Defamation. —
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by
signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any
imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing
or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.–It may amount to defamation to impute
anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the
reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to
the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
16
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
Explanation 2.–It may amount to defamation to make an
imputation concerning a company or an association or collection
of persons as such.
Explanation 3.–An imputation in the form of an alternative or
expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.–No imputation is said to harm a person’s
reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the
estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of
that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of
his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or
causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a
loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
7. As can be seen from Section 199 (1) of the CrPC, only a ‘person aggrieved’
can file a complaint alleging defamation. The phrase ‘person aggrieved’
means that, only a person who has been defamed or claims to have been
defamed can lodge a complaint. The complainant shall plead and show that,
it was him/her/it, who has been defamed.
8. However, the phrase ‘person aggrieved” receives a wider connotation when
read with Explanation 2 to Section 499. Essentially, Explanation 2 to
Section 499 states that, a company or an association or collection of persons
can also be defamed. Where a company or an association or collection of
people are defamed, then by virtue of Section 199 of the CrPC, members of
such a company or association or collection of people also become ‘person
aggrieved’. Such members can maintain a complaint under Section 200 of
the CrPC.
17
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
9. In this regard, reference can be made to John Thomas v. K. Jagadeesan
(Dr) 23, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
13. The collocation of the words “by some persons aggrieved”
definitely indicates that the complainant need not necessarily
be the defamed person himself. Whether the complainant has
reason to feel hurt on account of the publication is a matter to
be determined by the court depending upon the facts of each
case. If a company is described as engaging itself in nefarious
activities its impact would certainly fall on every Director of the
company and hence he can legitimately feel the pinch of it.
Similarly, if a firm is described in a publication as carrying on
offensive trade, every working partner of the firm can
reasonably be expected to feel aggrieved by it. If K.J. Hospital
is a private limited company, it is too far-fetched to rule out any
one of its Directors, feeling aggrieved on account of pejoratives
hurled at the Company. Hence the appellant cannot justifiably
contend that the Director of K.J. Hospital would not fall within
the wide purview of “some person aggrieved” as envisaged in
Section 199(1) of the Code.
(emphasis supplied)
10. However, a person claiming to be a member of a defamed association or
collection of people shall show that such an association or collection of
people is an identifiable body of persons. In other words, such an
association or collection of people shall be a determinable group of people.
23
. (2001) 6 SCC 30
18
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
11. In T.V. Chokkappa (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the legal
position in following terms:
15. Prima facie, therefore, if Section 198 of the Code were to be
noticed by itself, the complaint in the present case would be
unsustainable, since the news item in question did not mention
the respondent nor did it contain any defamatory imputation
against him individually. Section 499 of the Penal Code, which
defines defamation, lays down that whoever by words, either
spoken or intended to be read or by signs etc. makes or publishes
any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm or
knowing or having reason to believe that the imputation will
harm the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person.
This part of the section makes defamation in respect of an
individual an offence. But Explanation (2) to the section lays
down the rule that it may amount to defamation to make an
imputation concerning a company or an association or
collection of persons as such. A defamatory imputation against
a collection of persons thus falls within the definition of
defamation. The language of the Explanation is wide, and
therefore, besides a company or an association, any collection
of persons would be covered by it. But such a collection of
persons must be an identifiable body so that it is possible to say
with definiteness that a group of particular persons, as
distinguished from the rest of the community, was defamed.
Therefore, in a case where Explanation (2) is resorted to, the
identity of the company or the association or the collection of
persons must be established so as to be relatable to the
defamatory words or imputations. Where a writing in weighs
19
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
against mankind in general, or against a particular order of
men, e.g., men of gown, it is no libel. It must descend to
particulars and individuals to make it a libel. [(1969) 3 Salk
224, cited in Ratanlal and Dhirajlal; Law of Crimes (22nd Edn.)
1317] In England also, criminal proceedings would lie in the
case of libel against a class provided such a class is not indefinite
e.g. men of science, but a definite one, such as, the clergy of the
diocese of Durham, the justices of the peace for the county of
Middlesex. [see Kenny’s Outlines of Criminal Law (19th Edn.)
235]. If a well-defined class is defamed, every particular of that
class can file a complaint even if the defamatory imputation in
question does not mention him by name.
(emphasis supplied)
12. There is no dispute that a member of a defamed company or association or
collection of persons can file a complaint, but the question as to whether a
company or an association itself can maintain a complaint for defamation
needs to be examined.
13. It follows from a conjoint reading of Section 199 of the CrPC and
Explanation 2 to Section 499 of the IPC that, if a company or an association
can be defamed, then the company itself or the association itself, as the case
may be, can maintain a complaint.
14. A company or an association of people are not natural persons. They act
through one of its authorised members. In cases where the company itself or
20
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
the association itself intends to file a complaint under Section 199 of the
CrPC, the same can be done through an authorised representative by filing
proper authorization or documents.
15. The Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Mansingrao
Dhondiram Kadam 24, held that a company through its authorised
representative can file a private complaint. The following are the relevant
paragraphs:
11. The company on whose behalf the complaints were filed
has, therefore, preferred these revision petitions.
12. Although respondent No. 1, original accused, in each of
these two cases was duly served, he has not chosen to appear
before this Court.
13. Mr. Chitnis for the petitioner-company contended that the
view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge is obviously
erroneous. It was submitted by him that the company such as the
present one not being a natural person cannot act personally,
but must act through its officers, such as the Board of Directors
or the Manager or the Secretary and since on behalf of the
Board of Directors, presumably on the basis of a resolution
passed by the Board of Directors, a General Power of Attorney
was executed by one of the directors authorising Mr. Gokhale to
take all legal proceedings, both civil and criminal, and to sign
plaint, written statement, complaint, petitions, etc. the complaint
filed by Mr. Gokhale was a complaint really filed by the24
. 1977 SCC OnLine Bom 146
21
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025aggrieved party. In this connection he pointed out that the
complaint was in fact filed by the company but through the
holder of power of Attorney. It appears to me that this argument
must prevail.
14. Mr. Gokhale was duly authorised to file such a complaint
by one of the Directors acting on the strength of a resolution
passed by the Board of Directors who were obviously entitled to
act on behalf of the company. The view taken by the Additional
Sessions Judge, therefore, is obviously erroneous.
(emphasis supplied)
16. Gainful reference may be made to the Madras High Court’s decision in K.R.
Karalan v. Southern Roadways Ltd.25, wherein the following was held:
4. Mr. Bavanandam, learned counsel for the petitioner in the
two cases, raises various contentions to argue that the complaints
per se not maintainable and hence the two learned Magistrates in
question should not have taken the complaint on file. The first
contention raised is that Thiru Chandran, Additional Executive
Officer of the respondent company is not an aggrieved person and
hence he is not competent to file the complaints. In support of his
argument, counsel relies upon 9.199 (1) Crl.P.C. where it is laid
down that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable
under Chapter XXI of the Penal Code, 1860 except upon a
complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. By way
of Judicial authority for his argument Mr. Bavanadam cites G.
Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa, (1973) 2 SCR 40 : (1972) 2 SCC
680 : AIR 1972 SC 2609 : 1973 LW (Cri) 59, where the Supreme25
. 1983 SCC OnLine Mad 486
22
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025Court laid down that in respect of a complaint made by a company
or an association or collection of persons as such, “the identity of
the company or the association or the collection of persons must
be established so as to be relatable to the defamatory words or
imputations”. For more than one reason, the contention of Mr.
Bavanandam cannot be accepted. Explanation (2) to S. 499, I.P.C.
lays down that it may amount to defamation to make an
imputation concerning a company or an association or collection
of persons as such. In this case, the statements which are
complained of as defamatory refer to the T.V.S. Management or
Organisation. In the complaint, it is stated as follows:
“The complainant company is one of the units of the T.V.S.”
group of concerns which are generally known to the public and
referred to by them at T.V.S.’ Company.”
5. Therefore, it follows that everyone who belongs to the
management of the group company can be termed an aggrieved
person. The company, though a juridical entity, does not have a
physical or bodily existence in flesh and blood an, such, only the
Directors or the Managerial staff or representatives of the
company can institute action on behalf of the company. In this
case, the clear averment in the complaint is that Thiru
Chandran, Additional Executive. Officer, who has filed the
complaint has been duly authorised by the Management of the
company to take appropriate legal action in regard to the subject
matter of the complaints and connected legal matters. In the
light of these factors, there is absolutely no scope for the
petitioner to contend that the complaints have not been preferred
by an aggrieved person and consequently, the complaints have
23
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
been taken on file in violation of the provisions of S. 199(1)
Crl.P.C.
(emphasis supplied)
17. Likewise, the Karnataka High Court in C.M. Ibrahim v. Tata Sons Ltd.,26
has held as follows:
11. The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner that the authorised representative of the respondent-
Company is not an aggrieved party and as such the complaint
before the trial Court is liable to be quashed is unacceptable to
me. Section 199, Cr. P.C. specifies that no Court shall take
cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter 21 of IPC,
except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the
offence. The Criminal Procedure Code do not define as to what
is meant by a person. But Section 11 of IPC defines the word
‘person’ to include any company or association or body of
persons whether incorporated or not. It is not in dispute that
respondent-Company is a registered public limited company. It
is this company which is the complainant before the trial Court
in PCR No. 5832/2004. The respondent-Company filed the
complainant before the trial Court through its authorised
representative. It is needless to say that a company is a person
in law and not in fact. A person in law is always required to be
represented by a person in fact. The respondent-Company by a
resolution authorised a person to file and prosecute the private
complaint before the trial Court. Accordingly, the respondent-
Company has filed the private complaint through its authorised
26
. 2008 SCC OnLine Kar 625
24
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
representative. It is not the authorised representative who is a
party before the trial Court but on the other hand it is the
respondent-Company who is the complaint before the trial
Court. It is the respondent-Company who is aggrieved person
in the instant case. Therefore filing of a complaint by an
aggrieved company through its authorised representative is in
accordance with law and the same is maintainable.
(emphasis supplied)
18. Thus, the position of law is that, a company itself or an association itself can
be a ‘person aggrieved’ and can maintain a complaint alleging criminal
defamation. However, such a company or an association shall be a
determinable/identifiable group. Further, such identifiable company or
association shall duly authorise a person to represent it before the Court.
19. It is stressed that, in cases where a company or an association seeks to file a
complaint alleging criminal defamation, the same can only be done through
a duly authorised representative. Apart from the fact that initiation of
criminal proceedings by a company is a formal act, there is an obvious
distinction between a company or an association and its members. Under
Section 199 of the CrPC, both, the member of the company or the member
of the association and the company or the association itself can maintain a
criminal complaint for defamation. Therefore, it becomes necessary to
distinguish the company or association from its members. While a company
25
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
or association has to show that it is an identifiable group and has been
defamed, a member thereof, in addition, has to show that he is part of such
an identifiable group. Without due authorisation, no member can claim to
represent a company or an association.
20. This brings us to the next issue, i.e., whether a political party can claim to be
a ‘person aggrieved’ under Section 199 of the CrPC and whether a criminal
complaint against defamation is maintainable by a political party.
21. It is pertinent to note that various High Courts across the country have held
that political parties are constitutionally recognised and can initiate
proceedings before courts of law. In Maridhas (Supra), the Madras High
Court had held that a political party can be an ‘aggrieved person’ under
Section 199 of the CrPC. The reasoning behind this is the fact that political
parties are associations of people and are recognised under Section 29A of
the RP Act, 1951 and the X Schedule of the Constitution of India. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
8. Section 499 of IPC penalizes harming the reputation of any
person. Explanation 2 to Section 499of IPC states that it may
amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a
company or an association or collection of persons as such. The
expression “as such” occurring in Explanation 2 is highly
significant. It was considered in the decision reported in AIR
1938 Sind 88 (AhmedaliAdamali v. Emperor). It was held
26
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025therein that if a collection or company of persons as such is
defamed one of their members may make a complaint on behalf
of the collection or company of persons as a whole, but the
defamation must be shown to be of all the persons in the
association or collection as such.
9. The expression “person” occurring in the main part of
Section 499 of IPC has to be inclusively construed. Section 3
(42) of General Clauses Act, 1897 defines that “person” shall
include any company or association or body of individuals,
whether incorporated or not. It would obviously include a
political party. The expression “political party” is defined in para
2(1)(h) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment)
Order, 1968 thus:
“‘Political party’ means an association or body of individual
citizens of India registered with the Commission as a political
party under para 3 and includes a political party deemed to be
registered with the Commission under the proviso to sub-para (2)
of that paragraph”.
When the validity of the Symbols Order was questioned, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K.
Trivedi, (1985) 4 SCC 628 observed as follows:
“10.It is true that till recently the Constitution did not
expressly refer to the existence of political parties. But their
existence is implicit in the nature of democratic form of
Government which our country has adopted. The use of a
symbol, be it a donkey or an elephant, does give rise to an
unifying effect amongst the people with a common political and
economic programme and ultimately helps in the establishment
of a Westminster type of democracy which we have adopted
27
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025with a Cabinet responsible to the elected representatives of the
people who constitute the Lower House. The political parties
have to be there if the present system of Government should
succeed and the chasm dividing the political parties should be so
profound that a change of administration would in fact be a
revolution disguised under a constitutional procedure. It is no
doubt a paradox that while the country as a whole yields to no
other in its corporate sense of unity and continuity, the working
parts of its political system are so organised on party basis in
other words “on systematized differences and unresolved
conflicts.” That is the essence of our system and it facilitates the
setting up of a Government by the majority. Although till
recently the Constitution had not expressly referred to the
existence of political parties, by the amendments made to it by
the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985 there is
now a clear recognition of the political parties by the
Constitution. The Tenth Schedule to the Constitution which is
added by the above amending Act acknowledges the existence of
political parties and sets out the circumstances when a member
of Parliament or of the State Legislature would be deemed to
have defected from his political party and would thereby be
disqualified for being a member of the House concerned. Hence
it is difficult to say that the reference to recognition, registration
etc. of political parties by the Symbols Order is unauthorised and
against the political system adopted by our country.”
10. A reading of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagamv. The Election
Commission of India, (2012) 7 SCC 340 (both the majority
decision as well as the dissenting one) enlightens us with the
following facts:
28
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025“60. Section 29A of the R.P. Act, 1951, provides for the
registration of the political parties with the Election
Commission. It was inserted in the R.P. Act, 1951 in the year
1989. From the language of Section 29A it appears that
registration with the Election Commission is not mandatory for a
political party, but optional for those political parties, which
intend to avail the benefits of Part IV of the said Act of which
Section 29A is also a part…..
119. The expression “political party” was first introduced in
the R.P. Act in the year 1989 by the amending Act No. 1 of
1989. Section 2(f) was inserted, which provides for the definition
of the expression “political party”. Simultaneously, by the same
amending Act, Part – IV A was introduced into the Act, which
dealt with the registration of political parties with the Election
Commission and the advantages flowing from such registration.
120. The expression “recognised political party” was first
introduced in the Act by Act No. 21 of 1996, in the proviso to
Section 33 and Sub-Section (2) of Section 38. Later, such an
expression was employed in Section 39A and in the second
explanation to Sub-Section (1) of Section 77, Section 78A and
Section 78B, which occur under Part-VA of the Act by the
amending Act No. 46 of 2003.”
11. Though in the dissenting judgment of His Lordship Mr.
Justice Jasti Chelameswar, it has been observed that political
parties are not bodies corporate but are only associations
consisting of shifting masses of people, a recognized political
party is very much a distinct entity enjoying constitutional
recognition. This is particularly on account of the introduction
of the X Schedule in the Indian Constitution. The legislative
29
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
wing of a political party can issue commands through its whip.
If they are disregarded by the individual legislator, then
consequences as contemplated by law will follow. Just as a
company was held to be a separate entity apart from its
shareholders in the celebrated decision in Salomon v. A.
Salomon & Co. Ltd. [[1897] A.C. 22], a recognized political
party is also a separate person apart from its members.
(emphasis supplied)
22. A Division Bench of this Court in Ramadhuta Creations v. Telugu Desam
Party27, has held that a political party can be an ‘aggrieved person’ and can
maintain a writ petition. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:
22. Thus, a person whose rights are affected or infringed is a
person aggrieved and has locus to maintain the petition. The
expression ‘aggrieved person’ is elastic and elusive concept and
its scope and meaning depends on the content and intent of the
statute of which contravention is alleged and the specific
circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of person’s
interest and nature and extent of prejudice or injury suffered by
him. It is well settled in law that rights under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved
person except in a case of habeas corpus or quo-warranto.
Another exception to this Rule is where the writ petition is filed
in public interest. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding
locus of a person to reach the court has undergone a sea change
with the development of constitutional law in India and the
constitutional courts have been adopting a liberal approach in
27
. 2024 SCC OnLine TS 13
30
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant
merely on hypertechnical grounds (see Ghulam
Qadir v. Special Tribunal). A person to whom the legal
grievance has been caused, can maintain a writ petition
(see Samir Agrawal v. Competition Commission of India). The
TDP is claiming violation of the statutory right under Section
5B of the Act and Rule 24 of the Certification Rules, and
therefore cannot be said to be a stranger having no right.
Therefore, it is an aggrieved person.
23. In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh
(Railway) v. Union of India, a three-Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court dealt with the issue whether a large body of
persons having a common grievance though not belonging to
registered Trade Union can maintain a writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid issue was
answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court and it was
held that processual jurisprudence in our country is not of
individualistic Anglo-Indian mould and is broad-based and
people-oriented and envisions access to justice through ‘class
actions’ and therefore, the writ petition at the instance of an
unrecognized association was held to be maintainable. The
TDP is a political party, which is a body of persons, the
members of which subscribe to a particular ideology. The
TDP on behalf of its members has approached the court
seeking violation of the statutory right under the Act and the
Certification Rules.
(emphasis supplied)
31
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
23. Therefore, a political party can be an ‘aggrieved person’ under Section199
of the CrPC and can maintain a complaint against criminal defamation. This
Court rejects the contention of the Petitioner that, political parties do not
enjoy reputation and cannot maintain a complaint for criminal defamation.
24. Now the next question to consider is whether the Complainant herein could
have filed and maintained the complaint dated 10.05.2024.
25. It is pertinent to note that, the Bharatiya Janata Party is recognised as a
national party by the Election Commission of India. Meaning thereby that,
there is only one Bharatiya Janata Party which is recognised as a political
entity. Maridhas (Supra), relied upon by the Petitioner, also held that a
political party is an association on account of its recognition with the
Election Commission of India under the RP Act, 1951 and the Constitution
of India. The state units of a political party are not separately recognised by
the Election Commission of India under the RP Act, 1951. Further, for the
purposes of Schedule X of the Constitution of India too, it is only the
‘national unit’ of the political party which is recognised. The state units of a
national political party have no independent/separate existence. In the
absence of any recognition, the Telangana unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party,
i.e., the Complainant – Bharatiya Janata Party (Telangana) cannot claim to
32
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
be a separate identifiable group independent of the Bharatiya Janata Party,
the national party.
26. Even if one were to assume that the Complainant, i.e., the Telangana unit of
the Bharatiya Janata Party is an identifiable and a determinable group, it is
not an ‘aggrieved person’.
27. Admittedly, the alleged defamatory speech was made against the Bharatiya
Janata Party. It is also admitted that, the alleged speech was made during the
election campaign for the 2024 general elections in the country. This
obviously indicates that the speech alluded to the national unit of the
Bharatitya Janata Party. A perusal of the alleged defamatory speech also
indicates that, no reference was made to the Telangana unit of the Bharatiya
Janata Party.
28. It is not in dispute that Bharatiya Janata Party (Telangana) represented by its
State General Secretary, Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu, has filed the complaint
in its independent capacity. However, as the alleged defamatory speech was
directed towards the national unit or the Bharatiya Janata Party, the
Complainant herein is not directly defamed or aggrieved. Therefore, Mr.
Kasam Venkateshwarlu, claiming to be the General Secretary of Bharatiya
Janata Party Telangana Unit could have filed the complaint contending that
being the Member of Bharatiya Janata Party and also the General Secretary
33
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
of Telangana Unit of Bharatiya Janata Party is an aggrieved person by the
said speech. He could have contended that he is a member of the allegedly
defamed association of people i.e., Bharatiya Janata Party.
29. It was never pleaded nor stated in the complaint that the Complainant filed
the criminal complaint dated 10.05.2024 as a member of the Bharatiya
Janata Party. The Complainant asserted that it is a separate identifiable
group and was aggrieved by the alleged speech. Therefore, this Court holds
that, the Complainant, in its individual capacity as a separate state unit, was
not directly aggrieved and it is not a separate legal entity. Mr. Kasam
Venkateshwarlu could have maintained a complaint only as a member of the
allegedly defamed association or collection of people, i.e., the Bharatiya
Janata Party.
30. Even if this Court were to accept that the Complainant is a part of the
national unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party and may be treated as a member
of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the complaint is not maintainable for the lack
of authorisation. Neither the Complainant nor its representative, Mr. Kasam
Venkateshwarlu, were authorised by the national unit of the Bharatiya Janata
Party to file the complaint. As discussed supra, in the context of companies
and associations like political parties, authorisation is a sine qua non to
maintain a criminal complaint under Section 199 of the CrPC.
34
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
31. In Tamilisai Soundararajan v. Dhadi K. Karthikeyan 28, the Madras High
Court has held that where a political party is defamed, only an authorised
representative or the party president can maintain a complaint under Section
199 of the CrPC. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
16. However, in the case, on hand, as averred by the
petitioner in the affidavit, the private complaint has been filed
by the respondent, as a member of the political party against
statements alleged to have been made against the political party
and its Party President. However, neither the person nor the
party, which is alleged to have been affected by the said
statements have given any authorization to the respondent to
file the said private complaint. The respondent, on his own
accord, for reasons best known to him, has thought it fit to file
the said private complaint and the respondent, being not a
person affected by the said alleged statement, invocation of the
offence u/s 500 IPC does not merit acceptance.
17. From the above, it is implicitly clear that the respondent
has taken it on his own to file the private complaint on the
basis of some statements alleged to have been made by the
petitioner against some other person/entity with which he has
no grievance as there is no case of defamation as against him
and the ingredients prescribed under sub-section (6) to Section
199 Cr.P.C. in no way stands fulfilled. Therefore, the private
complaint alleging defamation has no legs to stand and the
cognizance taken on the said complaint deserves to be quashed.
(emphasis supplied)
28
. 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 5317
35
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
32. In the present case, the national unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party or the
recognised Bharatiya Janata Party was allegedly defamed. There was no
authorisation to the Telangana unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party to file a
complaint. Further, no such authorisation was given to Mr. Kasam
Venkateshwarlu to file a complaint under Section 199 of the CrPC.
33. The Complainant’s reliance on Maridhas (Supra) is misplaced. Mr. Kasam
Venkateshwarlu is the General Secretary of a singular State Unit. This Court
finds it difficult to consider him an authorised representative of the
Bharatiya Janata Party and he had been authorized to file the present
complaint against the petitioner for defamation.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the Complainant /
Respondent No. 2 herein represented by Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu could
not have maintained the complaint dated 10.05.2024.
35. It is apt to note that in the additional counter affidavit filed by respondent
No.2, it has been stated that in early May, 2024 when General Elections,
2024 were in progress, Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu was instructed by the
Telangana BJP President, Mr. G. Kishan Reddy, to file a criminal case
against the petitioner for making a false and defamatory statement against
his Party, i.e., the BJP will abolish SC, ST and BC reservations if voted to
power. Being General Secretary of a State Unit, Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu
36
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
executed the decision of the State of President. It is further stated that after
due consultation under the guidance of Telangana BJP Legal Cell Team, he
filed the said complaint. The said facts were not mentioned in the complaint
filed by respondent No.2, dated 10.05.2024. The said facts were also not
stated by Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu in his deposition before the trial Court.
36. It is also noteworthy that, during the cross-examination, the Complainant
has categorically admitted that he did not file any document to show that he
is the State General Secretary of Bharatiya Janata Party along with his
complaint and he did not file any authorisation given by Bharatiya Janata
Party authorising him to file the said complaint.
37. It is trite law that, power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. However, where the
initiation of criminal proceedings suffers from material defects or where
such criminal proceedings constitute abuse of process, the inherent powers
can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings.
38. In Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand 29, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as follows:
“43. In our considered opinion, in view of the facts which we
have discussed hereinabove, no inference can be drawn in
this case that the police action is indefensible or vindictive or
29
. (2012) 12 SCC 72
37
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025that the police were not acting in discharge of their official
duty. In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. [(2005) 1 SCC
122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] this Court has held that the power
under Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and
with circumspection to prevent abuse of process of court but
not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two
opinions on this, but, if it appears to the trained judicial mind
that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of
process of court, the power under Section 482 of the Code
must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed. Indeed,
the instant case is one of such cases where the proceedings
initiated against the police personnel need to be quashed. In
the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal filed by the
complainant Kailashpati Singh. We allow the appeal filed by
Om Prakash, Pradeep Kumar, Shyam Bihari Singh and
Bharat Shukla and set aside the impugned order to the extent
it dismisses Crl. MP No. 822 of 2005 filed by them for
quashing the order dated 14-6-2005 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Jamshedpur, in Complaint Case No.
731 of 2004 issuing process against them. We quash
Complaint Case No. 731 of 2004 pending on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamshedpur.”
39. This Court refrains to discuss the contents of the alleged speech and the
issue of its defamatory nature. However, this Court agrees with the
Petitioner’s submissions that, where political speeches are involved, the
threshold to allege defamation and maintain a complaint under Section 199
38
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025
of the CrPC shall be much higher. Political speeches are often exaggerated.
To allege that such speeches are defamatory is another exaggeration.
40. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present Criminal Petition is allowed
and the order dated 23.08.2024 in C.C. No. 312 of 2024 and the entire
proceedings arising out of C.C. No. 312 of 2024, pending on the file of the
Principal Special Judicial First-Class Magistrate for Excise Cases at
Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
1st August, 2025
Note: L.R. Copy be marked.
(BO.) Mgr