The petitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of process by the learned Trial Judge following a private complaint lodged by the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the cognizance taken by the Trial Court, the petitioners are before this Court in these petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. Brief facts are to the effect that, the respondent herein filed a private complaint in PCR No. 886 of 2006 before the 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and the allegations made in the said complaint are to the effect that the petitioners herein have caused untoward hardship and harassment to the complainant and several false cases were registered against the complainant and all those cases ended in acquittal. It is also alleged in the complaint that the Police Department in general has not performed its duties properly and the complainant was brought to the Police Station and was abused in front of several persons and was even sent to jail. Having been a former employee of the Police Department and having worked with diligence, sincerity and honestly, the complainant has been harassed by the Police Officers because he complained that several cases of corruption were not brought to light. The complainant questioned the manner of functioning of Police Department and the officers concerned and he even wanted to convene a meeting to expose the dark deeds of the Police Department. But, his effort was nipped in the bud by sending the complainant to jail. There are several instances of bribe having been taken to close the criminal cases. Therefore, the Police Officers with the aid of lawyers have resorted to deceit, cheating, mal-administration. All these actions on the part of the Police Officers have led to the complainant suffering in reputation in the public eye. Therefore, in the complaint, the prayer made was to compensate the complainant by the ordering Rs. 30.00 lakhs to be paid to him. The said complaint mentioned at the very beginning that it is a petition for demanding compensation for having defamed the complainant and pursuant to Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the said petition is filed.

3. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the Trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and passed the impugned order dated 28-8-2006 taking cognizance of the offence and ordered process being issued to the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the said order of taking cognizance and issuance of the process against them, the petitioners are before this Court. .

4. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 43 of 2007 are accused 1 to 4 and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 5784 of 2006 are accused 5 and 6. Since, a common order has been passed by the Trial Court, I deem it fit to dispose of these two petitions by this common order.

5. I have heard the submissions made by the learned State Public Prosecutor Sri S. Doreraju on behalf of the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 43 of 2007 and the learned Counsel Sri H.S. Chandramouli for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 5784 of 2006 and also heard the respondent-Party-in-person.

6. The learned State Public Prosecutor Sri S. Doreraju submitted that the petitioners are all Government Servants and working in Police Department. The 1st petitioner is a Police Inspector, 2nd petitioner is a Police Sub-Inspector, 3rd petitioner is an Assistant Sub-Inspector and the 4th petitioner is a Writer (Police Constable). Therefore, at the 2utset, it was submitted that the learned Judge was totally in error in taking cognizance on the basis of a private complaint filed and in issuing the process. As the petitioners are still in service, the bar under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes into picture and therefore, the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance when there is an express bar in respect of public servants. Without sanction being there against the petitioners, neither the private comp