Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from criminal defamation complaints filed by T. V. Chokkappa against the editors and publishers of three Madras daily newspapers—Dinmani, Hindu, and Indian Express—under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Dravida Kazhagam party sponsored a conference held on January 23 and 24, 1971, which passed a resolution stating that "it should not be made an offence for a person's wife to desire another man." The newspapers published a news item on January 25 and 26, 1971, reporting that the conference had resolved to make coveting another man's wife an offence, which was the reverse of the actual resolution. The respondent, who described himself as Chairman of the Reception Committee of the conference and an important member of the Dravida Kazhagam, wrote to the Hindu on January 28, 1971, seeking a correction. After the newspaper published its own version, the respondent sent a lawyer's notice on February 1, 1971, alleging the publication was defamatory and tarnished the image of the conference. No apology was tendered, and on February 9, 1971, the respondent filed complaints in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, which issued process against the appellants. The appellants moved the Madras High Court under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to quash the proceedings, arguing that the respondent was not an aggrieved person under Section 198 CrPC because the news item did not mention him and the conference was an amorphous body. The High Court dismissed the petitions on November 2, 1971, holding that the respondent was a member of the Dravida Kazhagam, an identifiable group, and thus an aggrieved person. The appellants obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the proceedings. The Court held that Section 198 CrPC is mandatory and only a person aggrieved by defamation can file a complaint. Under Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC, defamation of a collection of persons requires an identifiable body, and every member of a well-defined class can complain even if not named. The Court found that the conference was a distinct body from the Dravida Kazhagam party; the news item referred only to the conference, not the party, and the respondent's grievance was about the conference's image. The conference itself was not identifiable or determinate—its composition, number of attendees, and agreement with the resolution were unclear; the resolution was merely read out and approved by silence. Therefore, the respondent was not an aggrieved person, and the complaints were not maintainable. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed the criminal proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Defamation Complaint - Mandatory requirement of aggrieved person - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 198 - Under Section 198 CrPC, no Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under Chapter XXI IPC except on a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offence. The section is mandatory, and if a Magistrate takes cognizance on a complaint filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction would be void and illegal. Held that the respondent was not an aggrieved person (Paras 48A-C). B) Criminal Law - Defamation of Collection of Persons - Identifiable body requirement - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 499 Explanation 2 - Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC provides that it may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons, but such collection must be an identifiable body, so that it is possible to say with definiteness that a group of particular persons, distinguished from the rest of the community, was defamed. The identity of the company, association, or collection must be established to be relatable to the defamatory words. If a well-defined class is defamed, every particular member of that class can file a complaint even if the imputation does not mention him by name. Held that the conference was not such an identifiable body (Paras 48C-G, 50C, G-H). C) Comparative Law - Defamation of Class - Test of determinate class - Common Law and Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 499 Explanation 2 - The test whether the members of a class defamed are or not would not be apt in a criminal prosecution where the State, not the persons injured, carries on proceedings, and a complaint can lie in a case of libel against a class of persons provided such class is not indeterminate or indefinite but a definite one. There is no difference in principle between the Common Law of England and the rule in Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC. Held that the conference was indeterminate and indefinite, so no complaint could lie (Paras 50A-C). D) Criminal Law - Defamation of Collection of Persons - Conference as distinct body - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 499 Explanation 2 - The conference was a body distinct from the Dravida Kazhagam party. The fact that the party organised the conference did not mean both were the same or that members of the party and conference attendees were the same. The news item complained of clearly stated that the resolution was by the conference, not the Dravida Kazhagam, and the respondent's grievance was that the publication tarnished the image of the conference, not the party. Held that identifying the conference with the party was erroneous (Paras 51C-G, 52A-B). E) Criminal Law - Identifiability of Conference - Conference amorphous and unidentifiable - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 499 Explanation 2 - The conference was not an identifiable or definitive body so that all attendees could be said to be its constituents who, if the conference was defamed, would in turn be defamed. It was impossible to have any definite idea of its composition, the number of persons who attended, the ideas and ideologies to which they subscribed, and whether all positively agreed to the resolution. The evidence showed the resolution was read out and, because no one opposed it, it was taken as approved by all. Held that the conference lacked definiteness and identifiability, so defamation of the conference did not amount to defamation of the respondent as a member (Paras 52C-F, 52F-H). F) Criminal Procedure - Locus Standi - Respondent not aggrieved person - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 198 - The High Court missed the real issue by focusing on whether the Dravida Kazhagam was an identifiable group, whereas the question was whether the conference was a determinate and identifiable body so that defamatory words used in relation to the resolution would be defamation of the individuals composing it and the respondent could maintain the complaint. Since the conference was not identifiable, the respondent was not an aggrieved person. Held that the proceedings were quashed (Paras 52C-F, 52F-H).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was an aggrieved person competent to file complaints under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 read with Explanation 2 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly whether the conference was an identifiable body so that a member thereof could maintain a complaint for defamation of the collection of persons.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, holding that the respondent was not an aggrieved person under Section 198 CrPC because the conference was not an identifiable body under Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC.
Law Points
- Section 198 CrPC mandates complaint by aggrieved person
- Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC requires identifiable collection of persons
- conference was not identifiable body
- respondent not aggrieved
- defamation of class requires determinate class
