IMPORTANT POINTS
• Even in cases where the petitions/complaints made by the complainant before the learned Magistrate are in respect of allegations involving, not only offence under Sec. 500 of the I.P.C. which is a non cognizable offence, but also includes other cognizable offences, the learned Magistrate cannot exercise the powers under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. so as to direct the Police to register a crime and then to investigate into the offence as per Sec. 500 of the I.P.C. in view of the specific bar contained in Sec. 199 of the Cr.P.C. So the embargo under Sec. 199 of the Cr.P.C. would also bar the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to order the Police to register a crime and to investigate offence as per Sec. 500 of the I.P.C. in a case where the allegations are, not only in respect of offences as per Sec.500 of the I.P.C., which is a non cognizable offence, but also in respect of other offences which are cognizable offences, etc. it automatically flows therefrom that where the allegations are solely in respect of the offence as per Sec. 500 of the I.P.C. which is under Chapter XXI of the I.P.C., then the jurisdiction under Sec. 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. is not available to the learned Magistrate to direct the Police to register a crime and investigate the offence as per Sec. 500 of the I.P.C. in view of the specific bar contained in Sec. 199 of the Cr.P.C.
• The specific provision in Sec. 199(6) of the Cr.P.C., the legislature has made it clear that for offences under Chapter XXI of the I.P.C., the only remedy of the complainant, who is aggrieved of the said offences, is to file a private criminal complaint as understood in Secs. 190 and 200 of the I.P.C. and then for the competent criminal court concerned to take appropriate decision in the matter of taking cognizance and then to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

ORDER :

The prayer in the aforementioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is as follows:

“..... prayed that the proceedings pursuant to Annexure I First Information Report in Crime No. 900/2018 of Vadakkekara Police Station, Ernakulam, may be quashed in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard Sri.V.A.Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 & R-2 State authorities and Smt.N.Deepa, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.3 (lady defacto complainant).

3. It appears that the 3rd respondent defacto complainant had earlier filed a petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, North Paravoor, complaining that the petitioner herein has committed offence as per Sec.500 of the I.P.C. which is a non cognizable offence, on account of the petitioner's publishing certain postings in his Facebook account making certain remarks against the 3rd respondent, which according to her, are derogatory and defamatory to her reputation. It also appears that the learned Magistrate, instead of treating the said petition/complaint as a complaint under Sec. 190 of the Cr.P.C., had proceeded in purported exercise of powers under Sec.155(2) of the Cr.P.C. had directed the 1st respondent SHO of the Police Station concerned to investigate the matter in the said petition. Anx.1/7 given on page 13 of the paper book, contains the directions issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, North Paravoor, whereby the said court has directed the Police to register FIR and then to investigate the case made out therein and the same has been received by the 1st respondent SHO on 28.6.2018. Thereupon, the 1st respondent SHO of Vadakkaraka Police Station has registered Anx. I FIR in Crime No. 900/2018 of Vadakkekkara Police Station, as per Sec.500 of the I.P.C. (criminal defamation), wherein the petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused and the lady defacto complainant named therein is the 3rd respondent herein. It is mentioned in column No.12 of Anx.I FIR, which deals with the FI contents, that the petitioner has made allegations against the 3rd respondent in some of his updated postings in his Facebook account so as to defame the 3rd respondent and has also referred to her as “demon” to many persons of the locality with the object to defame her, etc. The prime contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the specific statutory bar engrafted as per Sec.199 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction even by resort to Sec. 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. so as to direct the Police to register a crime in relation to the offence as per Sec. 500 of the I.P.C. and that consequently, the Police has also no jurisdiction whatsoever to register a crime in that regard and to investigate the case for the offence as per Sec. 500 of the I.P.C.

4. It will be pertinent to refer to the provisions contained in Sec. 199 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

“Sec. 199: Prosecution for defamation.-

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:

Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Government of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory or a Minister of