ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in PCR No.1/2014, which is now numbered as C.C.No.113/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC, which is pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., at Bidar. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.1 herein has filed PCR No.1/2014 and when the complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., invoking the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC contending that an article was published in the paper belongs to the petitioner herein, which defame the name of the complainant. The trial Court proceeded to pass an order referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police after receiving the order registered an FIR, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and thereafter the trial Court took the cognizance. 3. The petitioner herein has filed an application before the trial Court under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., the same was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that already the matter was referred and the investigation was conducted and filed the charge sheet and the Court cannot review its own order. Hence, the present petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that when the complaint was filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., invoking the offences under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC ought not to have proceeded to refer the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police after registering the case investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. 5. The learned counsel in support of his contentions relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India reported in 2016(7) SCC 221 , and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.196 of the Judgment, wherein, the Apex Court held that another aspect requires to be addressed pertains to issue of summons. Section 199 of Cr.P.C., envisages filing of a complaint in Court. In case of criminal defamation neither any FIR can be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The offence has its own gravity and hence, the responsibility of the Magistrate is more. Section 199 of Cr.P.C., envisages filing of a complaint in Court. In case of criminal defamation neither any FIR can be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The offence has its own gravity and hence, the responsibility of the Magistrate is more. In a way, it is immense at the time of issue of process. Issue of process, as has been held in Rajindra Nath Mahato v. T.Ganguly, Dy. Superintendent and another190, it is a matter of judicial determination and before issuing a process, the Magistrate has to examine the complainant. In Punjab National Bank and others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha 191 it has been held that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court, though in a different context, has observed that there lies responsibility and duty on the Magistrate to find whether the concerned accused should be legally responsible for the offence charged for. Only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded then only process would be issued. At that stage the Court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. The learned Counsel referring to the principles laid down in the judgment would contend that the trial Court fundamentally committed an error in referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and the very reference and also continuing of the proceedings and taking the cognizance is bad in law. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2-State would submit that when the matter was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer registered the case and investigated the matter and found the material. Hence, filed the charge sheet. The trial Court also took the cognizance based on the material available on record, now the petitioner cannot contend that the learned Magistrate has committed an error. 7. Hence, filed the charge sheet. The trial Court also took the cognizance based on the material available on record, now the petitioner cannot contend that the learned Magistrate has committed an error. 7. The first respondent -complainant, who has been served in this proceeding also not represented before the Court in spite of proper service. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2-State and also on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. invoking the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC. The main allegation in the complaint is that an article published by the petitioner herein is defamatory in nature and the same tarnished the image of the complainant. When the private complaint is filed, two options are available to the Magistrate after receiving the complaint. Firstly, the Magistrate has to look into the contents of the complaint and apply his judicious mind whether it is a case for referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to the Investigating Officer for the investigation. The other option to the Magistrate by taking the cognizance proceed with the case and to record the sworn statement and after recording the sworn statement if the complaint averments and the sworn statements disclose committing of an offence, then issue the process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. In the case on hand, when the private complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., and when the complainant was present and looking into the contents of the complaint, the learned Magistrate ought to have applied its judicious mind and considering the material ought to have proceeded to take the cognizance and thereafter proceeded to record the sworn statement when the offences are invoked for defamation whether the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC complied and whether it is a fit case to proceed for the offences under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC. But in the case on hand, the trial Court has committed an error in referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. I have already pointed out that no need to pass any detailed order while referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. but ought to have taken note of Section 199 of Cr.P.C, and applied his judicious mind. But in the case on hand, the trial Court has committed an error in referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. I have already pointed out that no need to pass any detailed order while referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. but ought to have taken note of Section 199 of Cr.P.C, and applied his judicious mind. In the case on hand, private complaint is filed for the offences under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC and ought to have proceeded to look into the contents of the complaint and whether material found in the complaint suggest to take cognizance or not would have decided instead of referred the matter under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. 9. The Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy’s case referred (supra), in paragraph No.196, categorically held that another aspect requires to be addressed pertains to issue of summons. The Apex Court held that Section 199 of Cr.P.C., envisages filing of a complaint in Court. It is also held that in case of criminal defamation neither any FIR can be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The offence has its own gravity and hence, the responsibility of the Magistrate is more. The Apex Court also while dealing with the issuance of the process is also concerned taken note of the judgment in the case of Rajindra Nath Mahato v. T.Ganguly, Dy. Superintendent and another, wherein, held that it is a matter of judicial determination and before issuing a process, the Magistrate has to examine the complainant. Also referring to the judgment in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, held that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate instead of taking cognizance and proceeded to examining the complainant before the trial Court, committed an error in referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and ought not to have referred the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., when the private complaint is filed invoking the offences under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC. The very initiation of proceedings and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner itself vitiates. The very initiation of proceedings and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner itself vitiates. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court based on the charge sheet, the trial Court took the cognizance and no doubt when an application is filed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., before the trial Court, the same was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that the predecessor already referred the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and he cannot sit and review the order passed by the predecessor and he cannot review his own order. When such an observation is made, the petitioner has approached this Court and this Court has to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. When the very process of continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process, which leads to miscarriage of justice. Under such circumstances, the Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and if the proceedings are not quashed it amounts to mis-carriage of justice. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very continuation of proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process, which leads to mis-carriage of justice. 10. Apart from that also, on perusal of the article which has been published, which is produced along with this petition as annexure ‘B’ and the translated copy of annexure ‘B’ is nothing but an article with regard to loosing of a candidate in the election and rightly pointed out that there is no any derogatory statement, which defame the complainant and on merits also, I do not find any material to proceed against the petitioner herein and the allegation must disclose the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC., in order to proceed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC. 11. Having considered the material on record, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. 11. Having considered the material on record, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein in PCR No.1/2014, which is now numbered as C.C.No.113/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC, which is pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., at Bidar, is hereby quashed.