Judgment The petitioner, who is accused No. 1, in C.C. No. 107 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. praying to quash the said proceedings against him. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, on 22.11.2005, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, stating that the petitioner, namely Boddu Yohan and another, namely T.D. Kargilin, are working as Secretary and Treasurer respectively of Church of South India, Krishna-Godavari Diocese, Vijayawada. That herself and one Pandu Lakshmi Prasanna, are wives of Pandu Jagadish Chandra Pratap Babu and Pandu Jamesh Israel Raju respectively, who are the sons of Pandu Joseph, who is working as a Deanary Chairman, Chinthalapudi. That there are differences between the family members of her father-in-law and the petitioner and T.D. Kargilin. On 04.10.2005, the Bishop of Church of South India, came to Chintalapudi for distribution of KASA kits to flood affected victims in Shivapuram village of Chintalapudi Mandal. At that time, the petitioner and T.D. Karglin, also came to Chinthalapudi, in their official capacity as Secretary and Treasurer of Church of South India, and visited the house of her father-in-law, namely Pandu Joseph at 10.30 a.m. At that time, the petitioner and T.D. Karglin misbehaved with her and her co-sister. That they reported the incident to their husbands, but they did not report the matter to the police. Respondent No.2 in her complaint further stated that on 29.10.2005, the petitioner and T.D. Karglin, in their official capacity, made a complaint to the Bishop of Kirshna-Godavari Diocese, making certain allegations against her father-in-law. They got printed phamphlets making derogatory remarks against the family members of her father-in-law and distributed them to the public at various places with an evil intention of defaming their reputation. Hence, she prayed for taking necessary action against the petitioner and T.D. Karglin, for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 509, 501 and 354 I.P.C. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, referred the complaint under Section 156(3) to respondent No.1, namely the Sub Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi for investigation. Thereupon, respondent No.2 registered a case in Crime No. 187 of 2005 of Chinthalapudi Police Station and took up investigation. Thereupon, respondent No.2 registered a case in Crime No. 187 of 2005 of Chinthalapudi Police Station and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet alleging offences under Sections 509, 501 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, took cognizance of the same under Sections 499, 501 and 509 I.P.C. against the petitioner and K.G. Karglin, numbered the same as C.C. No. 107 of 2006 and issued summons to the petitioner for facing trial. Questioning the said action of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in the said case, has filed this criminal petition, to quash the proceedings insofar as taking of cognizance against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Magistrate has no power or authority to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Chapter XXI of IPC based on the charge sheet filed by the police. He submitted under Section 199 Cr. P.C., which deals with prosecution for defamation, no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of IPC, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved of the offence. Since in the instant case, the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Chapter XXI of IPC against the petitioner, based on the charge sheet, the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate, are not maintainable. He further submitted that once the police after investigating the case files the charge sheet, the same has to be treated as a police case, and the charge sheet filed by the police, cannot be treated as a complaint. To show that taking cognizance of offence against the petitioner, based on the charge sheet filed by the police is bad, he drew my attention to the definition of “complaint” as defined in Section 199(2)(d) Cr. P.C. wherein, complaint is defined to mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the Code that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Hence, he prayed that the criminal petition be allowed and the proceedings before the trial Court insofar as the petitioner be quashed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. None appeared for respondent No.2. The offences under the Indian Penal Code are divided into several categories. Hence, he prayed that the criminal petition be allowed and the proceedings before the trial Court insofar as the petitioner be quashed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. None appeared for respondent No.2. The offences under the Indian Penal Code are divided into several categories. Some offences relate to or against individuals; some relate to offences against public or persons or disturbing peace in the society; some are in respect of charges of defamation against individuals and some relate to marriages etc. Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code deals with defamation. Defamation is defined under Section 499 and is made punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. Section 499 I.P.C., which defines defamation, reads: Section 499– Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. Explanation 1 -It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2 – It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3 – An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4 – No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. Section 199 Cr. Section 199 Cr. P.C., which deals with prosecution for defamation, reads as follows: 199: Prosecution for defamation (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXXI 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, 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 Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions, a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. (3) Every complaint referred to in sub-section (2) shall set forth the facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. (4) No complaint under sub-section (2) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction, - (a) of the State Government, in the case of person who is or has been the Governor of that State or a Minister of that Government; (b) of that State Government, in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State; (c) of the Central Government, in any other case. (5) No Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (2), unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right, of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint. Thus reading Section 199 Cr. P.C., the intention of the Legislature is to bar the FIR or any consequent investigation and submission of charge sheet in any court by the police. Such grievance can be raised by aggrieved party through a private complaint to the Magistrate alone. Any defamatory act against a person injures the reputation of the person defamed. It is not an offence against the society in general. Therefore, the framers of law have decided to keep it out of the purview of investigation by police. The above said intention of the Legislature cannot be frustrated by taking recourse to the provision of Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. No Magistrate is authorized to direct investigation in view of the categorical bar imposed by the provision of Section 199 Cr. P.C. These offences are treated on a different level because otherwise they will impede the administration of justice and fair play. In the present case on hand, the learned Magistrate after receiving the complaint from the complainant, has forwarded the same to police for conducting investigation. The police after investigating the same, filed charge sheet. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance basing on the report. As a general rule, complaint can be filed by anybody, whether he is a aggrieved person or not. Section 199 Cr. P.C. engrafts an exception to that general rule. In relation to offences covered under Sections 499 to 502 occurring in Chapter XXI of I.P.C., an aggrieved person alone can move the Court. This section is mandatory. A reading of Section 199 Cr. P.C., it makes it clear that when a complaint is filed before the Magistrate, he has to read the complaint as a whole and has to find out whether the allegations disclose or constitute an offence under Section 499 I.P.C. which is triable by a Magistrate. This section is mandatory. A reading of Section 199 Cr. P.C., it makes it clear that when a complaint is filed before the Magistrate, he has to read the complaint as a whole and has to find out whether the allegations disclose or constitute an offence under Section 499 I.P.C. which is triable by a Magistrate. If the Magistrate prima facie comes to the conclusion that the allegation might come within the definition of “defamation”, he has to take cognizance of the same. The Magistrate cannot take cognizance basing on the report of the police because Section 199(2)(d) Cr. P.C. specifically says that complaint does not include police report. Similar issue fell for consideration before the High Court of Rajasthan in Asu Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1997 Laws (Raj) 83), wherein the Munisf Magistrate has forwarded the complaint given under Section 500 and 505 I.P.C. to the Station House Officer for investigation. Later, he took cognizance basing on the police report. This action of Magistrate was questioned by filing a quash petition before the High Court. The Court has allowed the quash petition, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa ( AIR 1972 SC 2609 = 1972 (2) SCC 680 ), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that (a) if a person who is not aggrieved by an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the I.P.C. files a complaint, no cognizance of the offence can legally be taken on it. Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 199 I.P.C. renders the trial of an accused person illegal. Their Lordships further pointed out that “Section 198 lays down an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by anybody whether he is an aggrieved person or not and modifies that rule by permitting only an aggrieved person to move the Magistrate in cases of defamation. The section is mandatory so that if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is note an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction would be void and illegal” and accordingly allowed the quash petition. The section is mandatory so that if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is note an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction would be void and illegal” and accordingly allowed the quash petition. The statute has prescribed distinct procedure for the making of the complaint under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and when the prescribed procedure has been followed, the Court is bound to take cognizance of the offence complained of. I am of the opinion that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate, is in gross violation of the mandatory provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore, taking cognizance of the complaint against the petitioner, is illegal. The Magistrate has no jurisdiction to either refer the case under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to the police for investigation or can take cognizance on the police report under Section 501 I.P.C. Along with Section 501 I.P.C., the Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 509 I.P.C., which reads as follows: 509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modest of a woman, -Whoever, intending to insult the modest of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. When a person is guilty of two distinct offences one is against public justice and the other offence under Section 494, the offence under the latter section can be taken cognizance. When a complaint discloses commission of several offences being fundamentally distinct in nature, the Magistrate has to take cognizance separately as per the procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code. As far as taking cognizance of the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. by the Magistrate against the petitioner is concerned, I do not find any illegality, and as such, I am not inclined to interfere with the taking of cognizance by the Magistrate for the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. against the petitioner. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in C.C. No.107 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, insofar as taking of cognizance for the offence under Sections 499 and 501 I.P.C. against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.