Judgment D.S.Dhaliwal, J. 1. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, the petitioner herein seeks the quashing of order dated 18-5-1983 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in Case No. C-57/83, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner on the basis of a criminal complaint filed by Shatrughan Agarwal, opposite party No. 2. 2. Opposite party No. 2, claiming himself to be the President of Ranchi District Bharatiya Jan Yuva Morcha filed criminal complaint against the Chief Editor, the Assistant Editor, the Publisher of a Hindi journal (Maya) and the petitioner, in respect to an item published in the said journal, relating to an interview given by the petitioner. It is alleged that in the said interview the petitioner branded Sri Atal Bihari Bajpayee as a coward, a police approver, a drunkard and a licentious person. It is further alleged that the utterances in the interview are highly defamatory and as result thereof Sri Bajpayee who is not only a man of great character and integrity but also an acknowledged leader has fallen in the estimation of his friends and supporters. Thus, according to the complainant, the petitioner and other accused concerned with the publication of journal have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Acting on the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi vide the impugned order issued process against the petitioner and the other three accused for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard counsel for the petitioner, A. P. P. for the State and perused the records. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 despite notice. 4. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure creates a bar to the taking of cognizance of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code except when the complaint is filed by some person aggrieved by the offence. 4. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure creates a bar to the taking of cognizance of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code except when the complaint is filed by some person aggrieved by the offence. Since, the aggrieved person in this case was Sri Bajpayee and as he has not filed the complaint, the opposite party No. 2 cannot be said to be an aggrieved person and as such the oppos ite party No. 2 being not a person competent to file the complaint, the learned Judical Magistrate was in error in taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2. 5. I find sufficient merit in this contention. It is well settled that Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by any one whether he is an aggrieved person or not. It modifies that rule by allowing only an aggrieved person to move to the court in cases relating to the defamation. The provisions of the section are mandatory and as such if a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction of the accused in such a case would be void and illegal. AIR 1979 SC 2609 G. Narasimhan v. T. V. Chokkappa, is the authoritive pronouncement by the Supreme Court on this point. 6. The opposite party No. 2 is not in any way related to Sri Bajpayee. The averment in the complaint that he is politically, socially and emotionally attached to Bajpayee for a long period will not bring him within the fold of the term an aggrieved person as appearing in Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this view of the matter, the impugned order taking cognizance being bad in law, cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, I allow the petition and set aside the order of taking cognizance dated 18-5-1983 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. C-57/83.