Complaint cases and defamation standing: Section 258 cannot stop proceedings, and a hospital Director may be a person aggrieved.

Section 258 CrPC does not apply to a summons case instituted on a complaint; its limited power to stop proceedings is confined to cases instituted otherwise than on complaint, so no discharge could be claimed after evidence had begun. Section 199(1) CrPC was also applied broadly: a complainant need not be the person directly named in the publication where defamatory imputations concern a company or hospital, and a Director may qualify as a person aggrieved. On that basis, the complaint was held maintainable and the challenge to the criminal proceedings failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to a summons case instituted on a complaint so as to permit discharge or stoppage of proceedings after evidence has begun; (ii) Whether the complainant, being the Director of the hospital against which defamatory imputations were published, was a "person aggrieved" entitled to maintain the complaint under Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to a summons case instituted on a complaint so as to permit discharge or stoppage of proceedings after evidence has begun.

Analysis: Section 258 is confined to summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint. The provision carves out a limited power to stop proceedings in such cases, and its operation does not extend to complaint cases. The offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was prosecuted on a complaint, and therefore the accused could not invoke Section 258 to secure discharge after the commencement of evidence.

Conclusion: The contention based on Section 258 failed and no discharge could be claimed on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the complainant, being the Director of the hospital against which defamatory imputations were published, was a "person aggrieved" entitled to maintain the complaint under Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Explanation 2 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 recognises that defamatory imputations may concern a company or association as such. Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits prosecution by a person aggrieved, and that expression is not limited to the person directly named in the publication. A publication attacking a company or hospital can legitimately affect its Director, who may thus be aggrieved and entitled to complain. The imputation was also treated as prima facie libellous, and the argument that the complainant lacked standing was rejected.

Conclusion: The complainant had locus standi as a person aggrieved and the complaint was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the continuation of the criminal proceedings failed on both the procedural and standing objections, and the prosecution was allowed to proceed.

---