1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5784 of 2009 Saeed Ahmed Mohamed Nazeer .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents Mr. S.M.Gorwardkar i/b. Ms.Sana Y. Baugwala for Applicant. Mr.Rakesh Dubey i/b.S.K.Dubey for Respondent No.2 Mr.Kondedeshmukh APP for State CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 14th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. Respondent No.2 Shafique filed complaint against the present petitioner and two other pesons by name Alim Naqvi and Farooque Ansari in the Court, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 52nd Court , Kurla, Mumbai being Case No.13685/SS/2009. An article was published in the news paper Urdu Times. According to the respondent No.2 the complainant, the article was defamatory of 2 certain persons named in the article. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 52nd Court, Kurla, Mumbai proceeded to issue process. Thereafter this petition for quashing of the complaint is filed. 2. If one peruses the roznama dated 4th August, 2010 it is clear that this court had issued notice to respondent no.2 calling upon him to appear before the Court so that the petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission. Taking this clue, the petition can be taken for disposal. Accordingly, rule is issued. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of both sides taken up for hearing. 4. According to the Respondent No.2 the article published in Urdu Times dated 19th April, 2009 is defamatory more particularly mentioned on the basis of averments in the said complaint. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the complaint is filed by Shafique naming himself to be the President of Kurla Taluka Samajwadi Party. According to him said Shafique, respondent no.2 3 has no locus standi to file a complaint for any of the offence, much less offence under Section 499 and 500 on the basis of the Article which is referred to at page 23. Learned Advocate Mr. Gorwardkar submitted that if an individual feels that his rights are affected that individual is required to file the complaint to ventilate his grievances and ask the appropriate relief. 6. I have perused the said article. Upon reading the article and hearing submission of the learned Advocates, as also looking to the status of the present complainant, namely President, Kurla Taluka Sanajwadi Party, Mumbai, I accept the submission advanced by the learned Counsel Mr. Gorwadkar and hold that the present respondent no.2 could not have filed complaint under Section 499 and 500 on the strength of the text of the said article. The lodgment of the said complaint is totally misconceived. It cannot be entertained. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, before whom the said complaint was filed has not applied his mind as regards the aforesaid point and process came to be issued though it ought not to have been issued. 7. In view of the above, petition is required to be granted. 4 8. Hence, petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).This court has not expressed any views as to whether the article is defamatory or otherwise. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)