Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Aveek Sarkar & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 21 August, 2025
2020:CHC-AS:1364
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
CRR 1565 of 2015
Aveek Sarkar & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv
Ms. Somopriyo Chowdhury
Mr. Soumitra Datta
For the Opposite party No.2 : Mr. Mohammde Amin
Ms. Mahjabeen
Mr. Ghulam Muztaba
Heard on : 21.05.2025
Judgement on : 21.08.2025
Dr.Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. Petitioners herein/accused persons have assailed the impugned
criminal proceeding being complaint case no. 34 of 2015 pending before
learned Judicial Magistrate, 20th court, Calcutta, under section 500 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. A petition of complaint was filed by the opposite party herein before
the court below alleging that on 13th September, 2014 a news item was
1
2020:CHC-AS:1364
published in the daily Ananda Bazar Patrika in which the members of the
Student Islamic Organization were shocked to read representation in which
serious allegations were made against the opposite party/organization which
is defamatory in nature and the imputations were made by stating that the
investigating officer has mentioned that some of these persons have
connection with the ex-general secretary of Students Islamic Movement of
India one Ahmed Hasan Imran, who is now a member of student Islamic
organization and said Imran had mobilized large number of Muslim youth
from park circus area with bombs and other weapons and had an active role
in sending them to Naliakhali and those Muslims youth committed looting
in the area and set many houses on fire.
3. FIR makers contention is that the news item under the heading ‘Imran
Niye Satraka Koren Rajjer Goendara’ contents untrue statements of
information published without any justification as said Ahmed Hasan Imran
was never a member of the opposite party namely Student Islamic
Organization but due to the publication of the Impugned report the
estimation of opposite party/Islamic organization was diminished in public
and also in front of persons known to them. Their further contention is that
by a letter dated 18th November 2014 sent through advocate, the opposite
party demanded an apology and withdrawal of the allegations in the
impugned report from the editor, publisher and printer within 15 days of
receipt of the said letter, but till date no apology was tendered to them. The
petitioner no. l, 2 and 3 are the editor, reporter and publisher respectively of
the said daily newspaper, which had published the said news.
2
2020:CHC-AS:1364
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding Mr. Ganguly, learned
senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on a perusal of the
complaint itself it appears that even if the allegations made in the FIR are
given face value and taken in their entirety, it only depicts that a report was
given by the detectives of Intelligence Branch of the State of West Bengal
regarding the activities of Ahmed Hasan Imran. There appears to be no
imputation made against the opposite party /Islamic organization in the
impugned news report. There is no mention in the report that the
organization or its members are engaged in any anti-national or anti-social
activities. Even it cannot be presumed from bare reading of the news report
that any allegation has been levelled against the opposite party/Islamic
organization and as such opposite party herein cannot be said to be an
aggrieved person of the alleged offence within the meaning section 199(1) of
the Cr.P.C. and except upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved by the
offence, no cognizance can be taken by a court in regard to an offence of
defamation.
5. He further submits that from a perusal of complaint it also appears
that except mentioning the petitioners’ designation in the complaint, there is
no averment made in the body of the complaint regarding any specific role
taken by the petitioners in commissioning of the alleged offence.
Furthermore when it is admitted position that the purported publication
was made in a news daily owned by a juristic entity under the name and
style ABP Pvt. Ltd., without implicating the said owner company, no
vicarious liability can be attributed against the petitioners herein for any
publication made by the company.
3
2020:CHC-AS:1364
6. Mr. Ganguly further argued that under explanation (4) to section 499
of the IPC, no imputation is sought to harm a person’s reputation unless the
said reputation directly or indirectly in the estimation of others lowered the
moral and intellectual character of that person. Accordingly the very basic
requirement of a cause of action for defamation is that a third party must
come forward and say that the complainant’s moral and intellectual
estimation in the eyes of the other third party has been lowered or
diminished because of a defamatory imputation. Therefore, for the purpose
of requisite cause of action for issuance of process, a mere statement by the
complainant that his reputation has been diminished in the eyes of other is
not sufficient. In the instant case it appears that except examination of the
complainant under section 200 of the Code, no other person has been
examined to prove that the reputation of the complainant/Islamic
organization has been damaged and or lowered.
7. He further argued that the issuance of the process in the instant case
is also bad in law because of the non compliance of the mode of inquiry as
provided under section 202 of the Code. It is trite law, when the magistrate
finds reasons to conduct an inquiry under section 202 of the Code, it is
imperative that apart from examination of the complainant, other witnesses
corroborating the statement made by complainant are to be examined even
for the purpose of section 202. However, in the instant case the said exercise
has not been carried out and for which the inquiry under section 202 has
been vitiated and consequently the order issuing process is also bad in law.
8. He further argued that it is not known whether the
complainant/Islamic organization is a registered society or any other
4
2020:CHC-AS:1364
association of individuals and in the light of the same the opposite party
/Islamic organization does not have any legal capacity to litigate in its own
name, neither does it have any capacity to authorize another person on the
strength of a letter of authorization to file a complaint. Therefore, the
complaint which has been actually filed by Kamruj Jamal depicting himself
as the secretary of the opposite party/organization on the strength of a letter
of authorization purportedly issued by the president of the opposite party/
organization is bad in law and no cognizance could have been taken on the
basis of such defective complaint.
9. Mr. Ganguly strenuously argued that the so called report which
according to the complainant was defamatory in nature is actually a
reproduction of the confidential report submitted by an inspector of police
DEB south 24 Parganas to the superintendent of police, District Intelligence
Branch South 24 Parganas. Therefore a verbatim extract made from an
official document cannot come within the purview of defamation, as the
newspaper is not the maker of the same. Publication of a report cannot be
said to be a publication of an imputation. In fact the petitioners are
absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case
with ulterior motive and therefore continuance of instant proceeding any
further will be an abuse of process of the court.
10. Mr. Md. Amin learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party no.2 submits that the report clearly mentioned that said Ahmed
Hasan Imran who is involved with various criminal activities and also a
member of banned organization, is now a member of the opposite party no.2
which is defamatory. He further submitted that the opposite party no.2 by
5
2020:CHC-AS:1364
the letter dated 18th November, 2014 had demanded an apology and
withdrawal of the allegations in the impugned report from the petitioners
but the petitioners did not tender any apology nor any rejoinder was
published for withdrawal of the impugned report, though it was within the
knowledge of the petitioners that the impugned report has caused immense
damage to the reputation of the organization and its members.
11. He further argued that the contention of the petitioner that they have
merely published a confidential report with no addition or subtraction will
not protect them as from the bare perusal of the report it can be found that
the alleged report is tampered and intentionally some paper cutting has
been added from the middle to malign the reputation of the opposite party
no.2/organization. Further the author of the report has not been named and
the petitioners can only say who tampered the report by erasing the name of
the author. There is also no such department in police by the name of
“Inspector of Police, DEB”, South 24 Parganas. He further argued that
regulations 79 of chapter IV of the Police Regulations, Calcutta clearly bars
unauthorized supply of police records or information to public. Therefore,
the petitioners have no authority to publish the so called confidential report
from the police diary. Had that been a true confidential report allegedly
regarding the activity of Ahmed Hasan Imran, the petitioners might have
been booked for sharing the same in the public at large which may have
very larger repercussions.
12. He further submits that the contention of the petitioner that they have
merely published a report and they are not the maker of the report is not
believable. The other limb of argument of the opposite party is that the
6
2020:CHC-AS:1364
report was published in a daily news paper under the name of “Ananda
Bazar Patrika” which is a juristic person and without implicating the said
company, no vicarious liability can be attracted against the petitioners, is
also not tenable as the trial court has ample power under section 311 and
319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon any witness and to
proceed against any person appearing to be guilty of offence and the court
can exercise such power at any stage. The argument advanced by the
learned Counsel for the petitioners that the opposite party no.2 has not
named any person in whose estimation the moral and intellectual character
of the organization has been lowered, does not find any leg to stand as the
imputation caused by the petitioner to the opposite party herein is by and
large read admittedly by all the readers of Ananda Bazar Patrika.
Explanation IV to section 499 is available only when the imputation is
caused by words, gesture, then only the person who claims that his
reputation has been maligned has to produce the person under whose
estimation his reputation has been maligned but in the case like the present
one when a publication has been made, there is no need to bring any third
person to prove the publication. Publication itself refers to the act of
communicating a defamatory statement to a third party.
13. So far as the argument raised by the petitioners that the process
under section 204 of Cr.P.C. was not issued in accordance with law, Mr.
Amin argued that in the order dated 23rd March, 2015 the learned
Magistrate had examined the complainant under section 200 of Cr.P.C. and
directed the complainant to produce all relevant documents and on 23rd
April 2015 the court below perused the complaint and the original document
7
2020:CHC-AS:1364
produced by the complainant and on being prima facie satisfied about
existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused persons
for commission of an offence under section 500 of IPC, issued process
against the accused persons, who are residing within the jurisdiction of the
trial court. Therefore the instant proceeding is liable to be dismissed.
Decision
14. A bare perusal of the news paper report, it appears that it is verbatim
reproduction of the investigation report submitted by the Inspector of Police,
DEB south 24 Parganas, addressed to the Superintendent of Police DIB
south 24 Parganas. Therefore, it is undoubtedly a reporting based on official
records. In Jawaharlal Darda and others Vs. M.G. Kapsikar and
another, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 112, the fact of the case was that a
news item was published disclosing what happened during the debate which
took place in the Assembly. The said proceeding was published in the daily
on 04.02.1984, which includes a question regarding misappropriation of
government fund and when questioned further about name of the persons
involved in misappropriation, the concerned minister named five persons
including the complainant. Complainant lodged the complaint alleging the
publication of said proceeding involving his name in the newspaper has
caused his defamation. The supreme Court held in paragraph 5 as follows:-
5. It is quite apparent that what the accused had published in its newspaper
was an accurate and true report of the proceedings of the Assembly.
Involvement of the respondent was disclosed by the preliminary enquiry made
by the Government. If the accused bona fide believing the version of the
Minister to be true published the report in good faith it cannot be said that they
intended to harm the reputation of the complainant. It was a report in respect of
public conduct of public servants who were entrusted with public funds
intended to be used for public good. Thus the facts and circumstances of the
case disclose that the news items were published for public good. All these
aspects have been overlooked by the High Court.
8
2020:CHC-AS:1364
15. In Sanjay Upadhyay Vs. Anand Dubey reported in (2024) 3 SCC
18, the complaint was founded on an allegation that the appellant who is
the registered owner of a daily newspaper allowed a news article to be
published in the edition dated 24th February, 2013 bearing a title “Advocate
ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” and the allegation
of the complaint was that the said news article was published in the news
paper without ascertaining the truth and such publication has brought
down the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of the public at large
and therefore it constitutes offence under section 500 of the IPC. While dealt
with the said issue supreme Court clearly held that the publication in
question did not warrant prosecution against the accused for the offence
punishable under section 500 of the IPC as it was published in good faith
and also on the ground that the publication is protected in exercise of
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, enshrined under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
16. Coming back to the instant report it appears that the only reference
made to the complainant/Islamic organization in the report is to the effect
that one Ahmed Hasan Imran who was the erstwhile General Secretary of
student Islamic Movement of India is presently the member of the
complainant/ Islamic organization. However it is clear from the report that
such reference to the complainant/organization is clearly a reproduction of
the contents of the investigation report submitted by the Inspector of Police
DEB, South 24 Parganas, reproduced on the left hand column of the self
same news report.
9
2020:CHC-AS:1364
17. The Eighth exception of section 499 of the IPC reads as follows:-
Eighth Exception.– Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.– It
is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to
any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the
subject-matter of accusation.
IllustrationIf A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith
complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z’s master; if A in good faith
complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z’s father–A is within this exception.
18. The aforesaid illustration it clearly reflects that if an accusation is
made by a person in good faith against another person, the said accusation
cannot amount to defamation. Therefore, the report which merely published
official investigation report submitted by a police officer to his superior
authority, in discharge of his official duty, it comes within the purview of
eighth exception to section 499 of the IPC.
19. In Kishore Balkrishna Nand Vs. State of Maharashtra and
another, reported in (2023) 8 SCC 358, the complainant lodged a
complaint alleging that a shop had been raised by encroaching upon some
land. In the complaint the accused/complainant further stated that such
shop was creating nuisance as many anti social element and road romeos
had started visiting the said shop and were creating all sorts of problem. The
contention of the accused was that none of the ingredients under section
499 IPC which is made punishable under section 500 IPC are disclosed and
the accused in good faith brought to the notice of the magistrate that the
complainant had encroached upon some portion of the land and had put up
a shop which was creating nuisance and as such it does not constitute any
offence of defamation. The Apex Court held that no case is made out to put
10
2020:CHC-AS:1364
the appellant to trial for the alleged offence as there is no defamation as
such. In para 16, the Apex Court held:-
“16. Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a defamation
to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those
who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-
matter of accusation. Even otherwise by perusing the allegations made in
the complaint, we are satisfied that no case for defamation has been made
out.”
20. Moreover it is settled law that no one can be defamed in his own eyes. In the
present case admittedly no witness was examined before issuance of
process, in whose eyes the complainant was defamed. It may be that a large
number of people is the reader of the said news paper but that does not
mean that in the eyes of all those readers, the complainant/organization has
been defamed, unless any such reader comes before the court and disclose
that in their eyes, the reporting has defamed the complainant/organization.
21. Explanation 4 to section 499 reads as follows:-
“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.
Illustrations (a) A says– “Z is an honest man; he never stole B’s watch”;
intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B’s watch. This is
defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B’s watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be
believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation unless it fall within one of the
exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s watch, intending it to be
believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of
the exceptions.”
22. Therefore unless the complainant shows by examination of witnesses,
before issuance of process that in the estimation of such witness, the moral
or intellectual character of the complainant has been lowered, no process/
summons can be issued under section 500 of the IPC. In the instant case
11
2020:CHC-AS:1364
the statement of said Kamruj Jamal who is the secretary of the
complainant/ organization has only recorded his statement on solemn
affirmation on behalf of the complainant. In absence of any other witness to
corroborate the allegations of the complainant that it was defamatory in
their eyes, no process ought to have been issued by the magistrate, as no
prima facie case under section 500 IPC is made out.
23. This High Court in Dipankar Bagchi Vs. State of West Bengal &
Anr. reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 1877 held that if the allegation
made in the complaint is that due to the imputation made by the accused,
his reputation has been harmed and lowered down in the estimation of the
others, and if it does not receive support from the evidence of other
witness(es), no case for commission of an offence of defamation has been
made out against the accused. The same view has been reiterated by this
High Court in Smt. Kalpana Majumder Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.
reported in , 2017 SSC Online Cal 103 and M/S Nishka Properties Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2013 SCC Online Cal 14482.
24. In Nishka properties Pvt Ltd. and another (supra) it has been
specifically held by this High court
“In order to justify a charge under Section 500 IPC it is required that the
allegations satisfy requirement of Section 499 IPC as also the explanations
appended thereto. It is thus required to be shown by an aggrieved person that
the imputation which has harmed his reputation, directly or indirectly lowered
his moral and intellectual character in the estimation of others. In the event,
the moral or intellectual character of the aggrieved person is not lowered in
the estimation of other persons, making of the imputation cannot per se lead
to commission of offence of defamation. In the instant case, neither the
petition nor the statement of the Opposite Party No. 2, recorded on solemn
affirmation before the learned Magistrate, allege that the reputation and/or
moral or intellectual character of the Opposite Party No. 2 was lowered in the
estimation of any other person and the Opposite Party No. 2 had also failed to
adduce any person, as witness on his behalf, in support of the fact that his
moral or intellectual character has been lowered in the eyes of the said person
subsequent to publication of the alleged defamatory letters. It is thus apparent
that the Opposite Party No. 2 has failed to make out a case within the
12
2020:CHC-AS:1364
parameters as provided under Section 499 IPC and as such the charge of
defamation as alleged against the petitioner is without any merit.”
25. In M/S. Pataka Industries Pvt Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in
2013 SCC Online Cal 19696 this High Court held as follows:-
Defamation is a species of which mens rea is the genesis. The complaint of all
cases cannot be equated with defamation. The complaint may not have any
mens rea but defamation must have it. Any sort of allegation with a touch of
imputation against any person per se cannot be categorised as “defamation”.
Had it not been so, there cannot be any birth of complaint against anybody.
Every complaint is more or less having a touch of imputation. There is a
marked difference between ‘defamation per se’ and ‘implied defamation’,
which is prima facie not actionable. The former manifests only defamation
while the latter is an allegation mixed with imputation. The allegation
necessarily includes imputation to some extent while the vice versa is not
correct.
Every citizen has a right to freedom of speech subject to restriction as covered
under Section 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Ventilation of grievances to
superior controlling authority against any Officer in respect of an interest
inversely suffered by a person does not fall within the ambit of Section 499
IPC to warrant punishment under Section 500 IPC.
26. Furthermore it is no longer res integra that press has the freedom to
report news worth materials of public significance. In Arnab Ranjan
Goswami Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12 it
was held in para 38 as follows:-
38. Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes a recognition of the
constitutional duty entrusted to this Court to protect the fundamental rights
of citizens. The exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and
expression protected by Article 19(1)(a). The petitioner is a media journalist.
The airing of views on television shows which he hosts is in the exercise of
his fundamental right to speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
India’s freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to
power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal. The exercise of that
fundamental right is not absolute and is answerable to the legal regime
enacted with reference to the provisions of Article 19(2). But to allow a
journalist to be subjected to multiple complaints and to the pursuit of
remedies traversing multiple States and jurisdictions when faced with
successive FIRs and complaints bearing the same foundation has a stifling
effect on the exercise of that freedom. This will effectively destroy the
freedom of the citizen to know of the affairs of governance in the nation and
the right of the journalist to ensure an informed society. Our decisions hold
that the right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than the right
of the citizen to speak and express. But we must as a society never forget
that one cannot exist without the other. Free citizens cannot exist when the
news media is chained to adhere to one position. Yuval Noah Harari has put
it succinctly in his recent book titled “21 Lessons for the 21st
13
2020:CHC-AS:1364
Century”:”Questions you cannot answer are usually far better for you than
answers you cannot question”.
27. In LIC Vs. Manu Bhai D Shah reported in (1992) 3 SCC 637 it was
held by Apex Court that subject to reasonable restriction stated in Article
19(2), any attempt to deny the citizens right to publish and circulate his
views violates Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of India. Para 8 of the
Judgement runs as follow:-
8. The words “freedom of speech and expression” must, therefore, be broadly
construed to include the freedom to circulate one’s views by words of mouth or in
writing or through audio-visual instrumentalities. It, therefore, includes the right
to propagate one’s views through the print media or through any other
communication channel e.g. the radio and the television. Every citizen of this free
country, therefore, has the right to air his or her views through the printing
and/or the electronic media subject of course to permissible restrictions imposed
under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The print media, the radio and the tiny
screen play the role of public educators, so vital to the growth of a healthy
democracy. Freedom to air one’s views is the lifeline of any democratic institution
and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death-knell to
democracy and would help usher in autocracy or dictatorship. It cannot be
gainsaid that modern communication mediums advance public interest by
informing the public of the events and developments that have taken place and
thereby educating the voters, a role considered significant for the vibrant
functioning of a democracy. Therefore, in any set-up, more so in a democratic set-
up like ours, dissemination of news and views for popular consumption is a must
and any attempt to deny the same must be frowned upon unless it falls within
the mischief of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It follows that a citizen for
propagation of his or her ideas has a right to publish for circulation his views in
periodicals, magazines and journals or through the electronic media since it is
well known that these communication channels are great purveyors of news and
views and make considerable impact on the minds of the readers and viewers
and are known to mould public opinion on vital issues of national importance.
Once it is conceded, and it cannot indeed be disputed, that freedom of speech
and expression includes freedom of circulation and propagation of ideas, there
can be no doubt that the right extends to the citizen being permitted to use the
media to answer the criticism levelled against the view propagated by him.
Every free citizen has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases
before the public; to forbid this, except to the extent permitted by Article 19(2),
would be an inroad on his freedom. This freedom must, however, be exercised
with circumspection and care must be taken not to trench on the rights of other
citizens or to jeopardise public interest. It is manifest from Article 19(2) that the
right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) is subject to imposition of reasonable
restrictions in the interest of, amongst others, public order, decency or morality or
in relation to defamation or incitement to an offence. It is, therefore, obvious that
subject to reasonable restrictions placed under Article 19(2) a citizen has a right
to publish, circulate and disseminate his views and any attempt to thwart or
deny the same would offend Article 19(1)(a).”
28. Moreover I am agreeable with the submissions made by Senior
Counsel Mr. Ganguly that there is nothing to show that the complainant/
14
2020:CHC-AS:1364
organization is a body or association that a secretary can be permitted to
claim defamation of all its member by mere reference to one of its so called
member by referring a publication alleging that the publication amounts to
defamation of all its members.
29. In Kalyan Banerjee Vs. Mridul Das reported in 2015 SCC Online
Cal 10603, ratio in this context has been laid down by this Court as follow:-
12. In the present case the allegation is that the petitioner by his derogatory
statements caused defamation of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The
only identifiable member of that particular political party in the entire
complaint happens to be Mr. Buddhadev Bhattacharya, the Chief Minister of
West Bengal at the relevant time. Undoubtedly the highlighted statements of
the petitioner are indecent, vulgar and derogatory. However there is a
Statutory bar under section 199(2) & (4) of the Cr.P.C. for prosecution for the
offence of defamation against the Chief Minister of the State at the instance of
a private complainant. Under these provisions taking of cognizance in relation
to the offence of defamation against certain specified Office holders and Public
Servants including a Minister of the Union or of a State (which naturally
includes a Chief Minister as well) without the previous sanction of the State
Government is not permissible. The only exception in this regard is taking of
cognizance of such offence by a Court of Session, and that too only upon a
complaint made in writing by the Public Prosecutor. But in this case neither
the complaint was filed after obtaining sanction from the State Government,
nor was the cognizance taken by any Session Court. Consequently the
proceedings so far as they relate to the alleged defamation of the Chief
Minister of West Bengal at the relevant time are clearly unsustainable on
account of the Statutory bar under section 199(2) & (4) of the Cr.P.C.
13. Regarding the alleged defamation of the political party, this Court, in
relying on the citations referred above, is in respectful agreement with the
decision of the Kerala High Court that the Communist Party of India
(Marxist) is not a determinable, definite or identifiable body or
association of such nature that each and every member of the same
stands to get individually defamed when an insinuation is made
against the party as a whole. The Complainant therefore cannot be held to
be defamed individually, and consequently is not an “aggrieved person” in the
given case. On this count also therefore the complaint filed in the court of the
Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate would be untenable.
30. In S. Khsuboo Vs. Kanniammal and another reported in (2010) 5
SCC 600, Supreme Court while dealt with the issue of cause of action for
defamation case held as follows:-
42. While deciding the case, this Court in G. Narasimhan [(1972) 2 SCC 680 :
1972 SCC (Cri) 777 : AIR 1972 SC 2609] placed reliance on the judgment of
the House of Lords in Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd. [1944 AC15
2020:CHC-AS:1364
116 : (1944) 1 All ER 495 (HL)] , wherein it had been held that it is an
essential element of the cause of action for defamation that the words
complained of should be published “of the complainant/plaintiff”. Where he is
not named, the test would be whether the words would reasonably lead
people acquainted with him to the conclusion that he was the person referred
to. In fact, it is the reputation of an individual person which must be in
question and only such a person can claim to have “a legal peg for a
justifiable claim to hang on”.
31. In the overall consideration of the matter, I find that this is a fit case
for quashing the order of issuance of process and the proceeding itself, as
from the complaint, as well as from the initial deposition of complainant, no
case for commission of an offence of defamation has been made as against
the present petitioners. In above mentioned facts and circumstances of the
case since the chance of conviction of the petitioners is bleak, I find that
further continuance of the present proceeding will be a mere abuse of
process of Court.
32. In such view of the mater CRR 1565 of 2015 is allowed.
33. The impugned proceeding being complaint case no. 34 of 2015
pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta is hereby quashed.
34. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if applied for, be
given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(DR. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.)
16