ORDER 1. Applicant is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 31st August, 1994 passed in Criminal Case No. 945/94 passed by the A.C.J.M. Bilaspur, whereby complaint filed by Smt. Hemlata Sahu for the offence punishable under sections 499 and 500 IPC has been dismissed. 2. The complainant contended that she was running an institution in the name of Mahila Prashikshan Kendla. The respondent took admission in the institute by depositing Rs. 113/- for taking training of Banking and appeared in the examination in June, 1990. Thereafter the respondent moved an application for granting training-certificate. However, the respondent lodged a report on 21-2-1991 at police station Civil Lines and the matter was got published in the news papers. It was contended that the publication was made with an object to defame the applicant. 3. Learned trial Court issued notice to the respondent. The respondent abjured the guilt. Learned trial Court formulated four questions. Apart from the other defences, one of the defence was that the complainant was running the institution in the name of Hemlata Sahu though her name is Harbai. Paragraph - 13 of the judgment passed by the trial Court is pertinent to note which goes to show the facts and circumstances under which the complainant has failed to prove the variations. In paragraph - 14 it has also been noted that the complainant has failed to discharge the burden caused upon her. The complainant had failed to produce the relevant material, as such the acquittal was recorded by the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant herein this petition had filed a Civil Suit No. 17-B/96 against the respondent Smt. Reeta Singh more or less on the similar facts on which the complaint was filed. The said civil suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 17th March, 1997. 5. In support of submission learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a decision reported in Manipur Administration Vs. The said civil suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 17th March, 1997. 5. In support of submission learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a decision reported in Manipur Administration Vs. Thoklchom Rira Singh) in which is it held that "The rule of issue estoppel in a criminal trial is that where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent Court on a former occasion and a finding has been reached in favour of an accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution, not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused for a different of distinct offence, but as precluding the reception of evidence to disturb that finding of fact than the accused is tried subsequently even for a different offence which might be permitted by the terms of section 403(2)". 6. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record and the fact that the petition has been filed seeking grant of special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge as well as the subsequent developments which had taken place and further that the civil suit having been dismissed, in the opinion of this Court no case is made out for interference. The petition fails and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.