ORDER

1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.23647 of 2016 pending before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore arising out of P.C.R.No.15167 of 2015 registered for offences punishable under Sections 211, 500 and 499 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri Vishnumurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K.J. Kamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The petitioners and the complainant/2nd respondent are residents of the same apartment complex Brigade Gateway. A complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioners alleging that registration of a complaint on an alleged false incident has tarnished the image of the complainant in the eyes and minds of the residents of the apartment complex. The story commences by the narration of the complainant that the petitioners and the complainant were good friends and families had been acquainted to each other. It is his case that every now and then, after a few months of acquaintance, the petitioners used to pick up quarrel and enter into a squabble with the complainant. On a particular day - 25-09-2015, it was alleged that the complainant was driving his car in the parking lot at about 6.30 a.m. At that point in time, the complainant is alleged to have tried to outrage the modesty of the 1st petitioner and has hurled filthy abuses against her. The petitioners register a complaint on the said incident, upon which, the complainant was summoned to the Police Station and made to sit there for the whole day and again was asked to come on 29-09-2015 after which, the complaint was closed with a non-cognizable report.

4. A similar complaint was lodged by the petitioners before the President of Brigade Gateway Residents Welfare Association, a registered body which has about 1255 members or apartments as members of the Association. The complainant was summoned by the office bearers of the Association and in front of office bearers and other members of the Association the allegations made in the complaint so filed before the President was read out. It is the case of the complainant that he refuted the charges and established innocence. Later the CCTV footage was noticed and the complainant was held to be innocent. It is the case of the complainant that by then his image in the eyes of the members of the Association of the apartment complex had been tarnished and it was established that it was a false case that was attempted to be foisted against the complainant.

5. Narrating the entire incident, the complainant registers a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate on 06-06-2016 directed investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to be conducted by the jurisdictional Police and a report to be submitted. The Police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet in the matter for offences punishable under Sections 211, 499, 500 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. It is at that juncture, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the complainant had registered the private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate could not have directed investigation by the Police in the matter of defamation as there can be no involvement of the Police and would further submit that there is nothing that is defamatory in the complaint that was lodged before the Police or the President of the Association and under Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. the complainant cannot be claimed to be an aggrieved person.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would vehemently refute the submissions and contends that the petitioner