JUDGMENT B.N.P. SINGH, J.:- This criminal revision has a chequered career, as it appears from record, that once petition of complaint bearing Complaint Case no. 438 of 1990 was dismissed after examination of two witnesses during enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Judicial Magistrate, a criminal revision was preferred, and in pursuance of observation made by the in course of which two more witnesses were examined and the matter came for consideration before the enquiry Magistrate as to whether a prima facie case had been made out for issuance of summons against those arrayed as accused to put them on trial. The learned Judicial Magistrate who was in seisin of the proceeding having considered the matter before him noticed that apart from other facts which operate adverse to the complainant, also in view of the exception under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, there was no good reason to proceed with the case and eventually dismissed the petition of complaint. 2. At the earliest I may notice some of the salient features of the case of the petitioner centering round the controversy that has arisen between the parties. A news item was published in Nav Bharat Times on 7th June, 1990 admittedly with some accusations against the petitioner. The petitioner harbouring under belief that these news were published in the news paper with an object to erode his reputation in the public eyes, sued as many as eight number of persons including the Chief Editor, local Editor, one official of Nav Bharat Times, Patna, District Co-operative Officer and other persons, for their prosecution under Sections 500, 501, 502 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. As has been stated earlier, the petition of complaint was once dismissed, pursuant to which a criminal revision was preferred and in pursuance of direction, enquiry again commenced, on conclusion of which the learned Magistrate having considered various aspects of the matter, dismissed petition of complaint which is impugned in this revision. To put the propriety of the order in question, contentions were raised at Bar on behalf of the petitioner that though petition of complaint was dismissed taking recourse to exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, said exception was applicable only at the stage of trial. To put the propriety of the order in question, contentions were raised at Bar on behalf of the petitioner that though petition of complaint was dismissed taking recourse to exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, said exception was applicable only at the stage of trial. Other contentions raised at bar was that though an enquiry was held by the Deputy Collector, Gaya as early as on 18th April, 1990, the accusation attributed to the petitioner was found to be without substance and hence publication of the news in Nav Bharat Times on 7th June, 1990 was only with an object to erode reputation of the petitioner in the public eyes. 3. Since opposite party no. 2 was dead, his name was expunged from revision petition and against others though there had been service of notice, none appeared at the time of hearing, except for opposite party no. 5. It is urged at bar on behalf of opposite party no.5 and State that preceding publication of the news on 7th June, 1990, a news with serious accusation had flashed in news paper against the petitioner about misappropriation of Govt. Money and other irregularities committed by him in the capacity of Chairman of Rauna PACS of Konch Block of Gaya district for which a criminal case was instituted against him on 25th April, 1990, photo copy of which, annexure A, has been annexed to the counter affidavit filed by Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, former District Co-operative Officer. It would appear therefrom that after due probe, accusations were found to be true and chargesheet too was submitted against the petitioner, and that apart, an enquiry into allegation was also held by Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Gaya Circle, for which a report was submitted on 24th April, 1990 and in that report too allegations against petitioner were found prima facie true. It is brought to my notice that the Management of Konch Vyapar Mandai Sahyog Samittee Limited in view of serious irregularities was superseded on 1st April, 1990 and Anchal Adhikari, Konch was appointed as Administrator under orders of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Magadh Division, Gaya. It is brought to my notice that the Management of Konch Vyapar Mandai Sahyog Samittee Limited in view of serious irregularities was superseded on 1st April, 1990 and Anchal Adhikari, Konch was appointed as Administrator under orders of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Magadh Division, Gaya. The management of Guraru C.D.C.M. Union too was suspended under orders of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gaya, and against weight of such mass of evidences it is urged that it cannot be logically urged that there was no accusation against the petitioner, which was highlighted in the press. Though charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner in the police case that was instituted against him, it has not been brought to my notice as to whether trial has culminated against the petitioner and what was finding of trial court. If those documents which have been referred to above are given due consideration, for which prosecution too was launched against petitioner, highlighting those matters in the press would not squarely fall within purview of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, and I do feel that the finding recorded by the court below cannot be said to be meritless, and issuance of summons, as such, and initiation of criminal proceeding against opposite parties would have been rather abuse of process of the court, and that apart, petition of complaint was filed in the year 1990 and since then more than 12 years have elapsed, and in that view of the matter it is a state matter which would not required further exercise in the proceeding, and that being so there is no merit in this criminal revision which is accordingly dismissed.