The petitioner, who is the third accused in Crime No. 359 of 2010 of Neyyattinkara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 469 and 501 and 34 IPC, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 115 of 2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

CW1, the Secretary of the Federation of Residents Association, Neyyattinkara (FRAN) filed a complaint before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions for restraining the first accused from collecting unauthorised collection of fee. The learned Ombudsman passed an order restraining the first accused from collecting the market fee. As per the direction of the first accused, the 4th accused printed posters in the FRAN Association's letter pad model in the press named 'Minipapers' owned by the third accused containing a statement which was not in the order of the Ombudsman and handed over it to the first and second accused. The accused persons, with a common intention to defame the Ombudsman and FRAN, pasted the posters on the wall on different places. On 09.03.2010, CW1 filed Annexure A complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyyattinkara, who forwarded the same to the Sub Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under Section 501 IPC only on a complaint filed before him under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that in view of specific bar under Section 199 Cr.P.C, the offence under Section 501 IPC will not lie against the petitioner.

4. On 05.03.2010, the Ombudsman passed Annexure E order directing the Municipal Secretary to take steps to stop the illegal collection of market fee. The main prayer in the complaint was not granted by the learned Ombudsman.

5. It is discernible at the outset that the reference made in the complaint which caused defamation is that (i) it defamed the Residents Association and (ii) it defamed the Ombudsman, who passed the order to collect tax from the market. The contention of the de facto complainant is that in the poster appeared in the wall of the market is baseless, malicious and it was published with an intention to defame the association and Ombudsman. On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that the FIR has to be quashed as it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 199 of Cr.P.C. That procedure which specially deals with the prosecution for defamation interdicts the Court from taking cognizance of offences under Chapter XXI of IPC (which deals with the offences of defamation) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.

6. The points to be considered in this case are as follows:

1. Whether the cognizance for the offence of defamation taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara is sustainable or not.

2. Whether the FRAN association can be treated as an aggrieved person.

7. Sections 469 and 501 of IPC read thus:

"Forgery for purpose of harming reputation.—Whoever commits forgery, 1[intending that the document or electronic record forged] shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

501. Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory.— Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offence under Section 501 of IPC is not maintainable. As per Section 199 of Cr.P.C, cognizance of complaints for offence of defamati