SURESH Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

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

(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 1 st 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 1 st respondent SHO on 28.6.2018. Thereupon, the 1 st 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 3 rd respondent in some of his updated postings in his Facebook account so as to defame the 3 rd 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.