Certainly. Here are the facts of the case in pointers based on the provided legal document:

• The petitioners, accused Nos. 3 to 14, are involved in a criminal proceeding initiated by the first respondent through a private complaint [15000032360001].
• The complaint alleges that the accused printed a book titled "Brief History of St. Mary’s Orthodox Church, Venmany" which does not conform to the requirements of the relevant law regarding printing and publication details [15000032360002].
• The book was printed by the 15th accused, who operates a press, and it is alleged that the publication contains defamatory imputations against a deceased person, Korula Chacko, specifically on page 8 of the book [15000032360002] (!) .
• The complainant claims that the publication falsely describes a gift deed, implying that Korula Chacko sold property, whereas the document shows it was a gift, which is alleged to be defamatory towards the deceased [15000032360002][15000032360008].
• The complainant contends that the publication's allegations are not defamatory, as there is no intention or knowledge that the publication would hurt the feelings of the deceased’s family or near relatives [15000032360004].
• The complaint also alleges that the prosecution under certain sections of law (including defamation and provisions related to printing and publishing) is not valid because the complainant is not a member of the family or a near relative of the deceased, thus not an 'aggrieved person' as required by law [15000032360010][15000032360018].
• The law emphasizes that only a person who is a member of the family or a near relative of the deceased can initiate a criminal defamation proceeding under the relevant statute, and the complaint lacks specific allegations establishing this relationship [15000032360017][15000032360019].
• The complaint was filed many years after the death of Korula Chacko, who had executed the relevant document in 1898, and the complainant claims to be the great-grandson but does not sufficiently establish the relationship within the legal framework [15000032360019].
• The prosecution also involves allegations that the publication violates provisions requiring the printing of the publisher's and printer's details on the book, which the law mandates to ensure responsibility and source identification [15000032360023][15000032360024].
• The law states that publishers who do not conform to the printing requirements can be held liable under the relevant provisions, and the court finds that the prosecution under these provisions is justified [15000032360025][15000032360027].
• The court ultimately observes that the prosecution for defamation should be quashed because the complainant does not qualify as an 'aggrieved person' and because the allegations do not demonstrate an intention to hurt the feelings of the deceased’s family or near relatives [15000032360012][15000032360021].
• The court allows the case to proceed against the petitioners under the law related to printing and publication violations, but quashes the proceedings related to the defamation charge [15000032360045][15000032360046].