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

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/2^nd respondent are

residents of the same apartment complex “Brigade Gateway”. A

complaint is registered by the 2^nd 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 1^st petitioner and has hurled filthy abuses

4

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

5

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

6

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 2^nd respondent would vehemently refute the submissions

and conte