JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The respondent herein had instituted a complaint against the complainant/petitioner herein before the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Solan qua the complainant/petitioner herein demanding illegal gratification for meteing transport expenses for visiting various places for verifying the position, status and tagging of cows purchased by the members of Self Help Group, Badhal, headed by the respondent herein. Consequently, FIR No. 11 of 2010 of 21.06.2010 stood registered against the complainant/petitioner herein constituting therein commission of offences by him under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In sequel to the registration of the FIR, the complainant/petitioner herein faced prosecution before the learned Special Judge, Solan. The Charge for which he came to be tried stood concluded by the learned Special Judge, Solan to remain unsubstantiated whereupon it pronounced an order acquitting the accused/complainant/ petitioner herein. In an appeal carried therefrom by the State of Himachal Pradesh before this Court, this Court pronounced a judgment in affirmation to the judgment recorded by the learned Special Judge, Solan. 2. The pronouncement of the learned Special Judge, Solan in Corruption Case No.10-S/7 of 2010 occurred on 29.07.2011 whereas the pronouncement of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2011 as arouse therefrom whereupon this Court rendered findings in concurrence to the findings rendered by the learned Special Judge, Solan, stood rendered on 13.07.2012. The complainant/petitioner herein, accused in Corruption Case No.10-S/7 of 2011, embedded upon a complaint instituted by the respondent herein before the Police Station SV &ACB, Solan, whereupon he by concurrent verdicts stood pronounced to be not guilty, instituted a complaint against the respondent herein on 6.11.2013 before the learned trial Court. In the aforesaid complaint instituted by the petitioner herein before the learned trial Court he alleged therein of publications in daily newspaper ?Divya Himachal?, occurring in its edition of 22.06.2010, relevant portion whereof stands extracted hereinafter besides a publication occurring in Hindi newspaper ?Punjab Kesari?, in its edition of 22.06.2010, relevant portion whereof also stands extracted hereinafter also publications occurring in ?Amar Ujala?, ?The Tribune? and ?The Hindustan Times? and ?The Hindustan Times? wherewithin echoings stand encapsulated qua in pursuance to a complaint instituted against him by the respondent herein before the SV & ACB, Solan, his standing caught red handed while receiving illegal gratification besides theirs holding revelations of his coming to be arrested constituted libelous material whereupon his reputation in society stood lowered. The relevant portion of a news item published in ?the Divya Himachal? edition of 22.06.2010 reads as under:- ?.....Pashu Chikatshak ko 5000/- Rupay ki rishpat letey rangey hathon giraftarr kar liya. Giraftaar kiyey gai Doctor ka naam Dr. Dev Raj Sharma hai, Solan Vigilance Viobhag main ek mahila Sandhya Sharma ney rapat daraz karwai thi ki Darlaghat Pashu Chikatsalya main Karyarat Ek Chikatsak ney kisi kaam ke badley 5000/- ki mang kar raha hai..... Taig lagwaney key liye karyarat veterinary Dr. Dev Raj Sharma ney ussey 5000/- ki mang ki hai? The relevant portion of a news item published in daily newspaper Punjab Kesari reads as under: ?....Pashu Chikatshak Dr. Dev Raj ki Rs.5000/- ki Rishpat Letey Rangey Hathon Giraftar Kar Liba Hai …..Pashuo Ko Tag Laganey ke awaiz kai dino sey pasey ki maang kar raha tha ….Sandhya Sharmaney iski Shikayat.....? The relevant portion of a news item published in daily newspaper Amar Ujala reads as under:- ?Sandhya ka aarop hai ki Pashu Chikatsak Dev Raj Sharma Gai key kkan par tag laganey ke badley 10,000/- maang rahey they, baad me baat 5000/- per razi ho gai? 3. On consideration of preliminary evidence adduced before the learned trial Court, it proceeded to order for the summoning of accused/respondent herein. Against the summoning orders pronounced by the learned Magistrate, she preferred a revision petition before the revisional Court, revision petition whereof came to be accepted whereupon the summoning orders impugned therebefore stood quashed and set aside. The complainant/petitioner herein stands aggrieved by the rendition of the revisional Court whereupon he stands constrained to institute the instant petition before this Court, wherein he concerts to reverse the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan in Revision Petition No. 3-ASJ-II/10 of 2014. The complainant/petitioner herein stands aggrieved by the rendition of the revisional Court whereupon he stands constrained to institute the instant petition before this Court, wherein he concerts to reverse the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan in Revision Petition No. 3-ASJ-II/10 of 2014. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan had meted deference to the provisions of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. holding therewithin a dictat of the apposite period of limitation for an aggrieved setting in motion the criminal machinery qua offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, being a period of three years, in conjunction therewith it concluded qua with the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed qua proven commission of an offence under Section 500 of the IPC, being a period of three years besides in tandem thereof with evidently the apposite complaint standing instituted before the trial Court after three years elapsing since the publication of purported libelous matter (s), he concluded of the complaint being barred by limitation besides it being not maintainable. 4. The reasoning aforesaid afforded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for dismissing the apposite complaint not being maintainable stands espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioner to suffer from a gross infirmity arising from the fact of his omitting to revere the mandate of the non obstante clause occurring in Section 473 of the Cr.P.C., wherewithin a mandate is held qua with availability therebefore of material in evident portrayal of the apposite delay standing properly explained, the Court concerned holding leverage to hence concomitantly draw affirmative satisfaction qua the facet aforesaid, rendering hence the apposite complaint to be maintainable even if it stands instituted before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction beyond the statutorily prescribed period of limitation conspicuously with the apposite delay standing explicated it warranting condonation besides empowering the Court concerned to take cognizance on the apposite complaint. Moreover, he contends on the anvil of a judgment of the Orissa High Court reported in Dambarudhar Panda vs. Mahendranath Saran, 1992 CriLJ 2213 wherein it is mandated of no application within the ambit of the non obstante clause to Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.), being enjoined to be preferred by the aggrieved complainant before the trial Magistrate for constraining attraction of its provisions vis-a-vis the maintainability of the apposite complaint significantly when the delay which has occurred in its institution stands displayed by the material as exists before the Court concerned to evidently stand explained whereupon it warrants its condonation, for obtaining benefit whereof he espouses herebefore of the relevant averments recorded in the apposite complaint which stand alluded herein-after activating besides renewing the cause of action vis-a-vis the aggrieved complainant also hence theirs evidently explicating the delay thereupon warranting the Court below to order for cognizance being taken thereon rather on anvil of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. it being ordered to be dismissed. The relevant provisions of Section 473 read as under:- ?473. Extension of period of limitation in certain cases:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court make take cognisance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.? Moreover, he in coagulation thereof vis-a-vis the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court occurring in its verdict reported in Uadi Shankar Awasthi versus State of U.P. & another, 2013 (2) RCR (Criminal) 503 wherein a pronouncement occurs qua an offence where an enduring injury from the alleged misdemeanor of the accused accrues to the aggrieved, the relevant misdemeanor being construable to be constituting a ?continuing offence? whereupon he espouses qua the mandate of Section 472 of the Cr.P.C. being applicable vis-a-vis the apposite complaint recording therein commission of offences by the respondent herein under Section 500 IPC significantly when the relevant offence constituted therein begets an enduring injury to the reputation of the complainant in the society, in sequel whereof he canvasses qua the computation of the apposite period of limitation for cognizance standing taken by the Magistrate concerned upon a complaint holding therewithin commission of a continuing offence commencing or beginning or running every moment, during the continuation of the enduring injury arising from the penal misdemeanor ascribed to the accused by the aggrieved, ensuingly he proceeds to contend of the petitioner herein in tandem thereto holding a right to initiate criminal prosecution against the respondent herein not only from the date of institution of a false complaint against him by the latter, significantly when in pursuance thereto his image in society stood lowered rather also when injury to his reputation in society endured continuously throughout the pendency of the trial against him for the charge arising from the complaint instituted by the respondent herein also when damage to his reputation endured during the pendency of the appeal preferred thereagainst herebefore by the State, rendered hence the penal ascriptions held vis-a-vis him in the apposite complaint to be construable to be constituting a continuing offence besides his standing perennially aggrieved wherefrom he contends of his throughout the aforesaid period whereon harm to his reputation endured besides even when on termination of the aforesaid proceedings against the petitioner herein injury to his image in society subsists perenially, the petitioner herein holding a leverage throughout the currency of the aforesaid trial to which he stood subjected to besides during the currency of the apposite appeal before this Court to nurse a grievance vis-a-vis the respondent herein besides obviously on culmination thereof his holding an empowerment to at any moment of time institute a complaint against the respondent herein. He hence espouses qua the view formed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge qua attraction qua the complaint the principles enshrined in Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., being inappropriate. 5. He hence espouses qua the view formed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge qua attraction qua the complaint the principles enshrined in Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., being inappropriate. 5. The aforesaid espousal made by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein openly militates against the principle constituted in Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., wherein a mandate stands encapsulated of the apposite period of limitation for enabling the Court concerned to take cognizance upon the apposite complaint being a period of three years significantly when the period of limitation aforesaid stands statutorily prescribed qua offences qua which a prescription is held in the relevant penal provisions qua imposition upon an accused a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years whereupon with a proven offence under Section 500 IPC enjoining upon the Magistrate concerned to impose upon the relevant accused a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding three years, obviously renders the instant complaint instituted after more than three years elapsing since the institution of an FIR against the petitioner herein on a complaint of the respondent herein to be beyond limitation hence cognizance thereon standing barred. Moreover, likewise with the institution of the apposite complaint occurring after more than three years elapsing since publication of purported libelous matter (s) also renders it to be time barred besides concomitantly it being not maintainable. 6. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends qua with an offence of defamation being a continuing offence hence the apposite complaint falling within the frontiers of the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 (2) RCR (Criminal) 503. However, the aforesaid submission is unacceptable to this Court given the injury or harm to the reputation of a person arising from publication of a purportedly libelous matter being an instantaneous harm caused to the image of the aggrieved in society whereupon he stands enjoined to with utmost promptitude prefer a complaint before the court concerned. However, the aforesaid submission is unacceptable to this Court given the injury or harm to the reputation of a person arising from publication of a purportedly libelous matter being an instantaneous harm caused to the image of the aggrieved in society whereupon he stands enjoined to with utmost promptitude prefer a complaint before the court concerned. However, with the aggrieved procrastinating the reporting of a grievance arising from publication of a purported libelous matter, especially when on its publication he has acquired immediate knowledge thereof, he is to be construed to condone the damage or harm as purportedly befalls upon his reputation in society Moreover, any delay therefrom in his instituting a complaint before the Magistrate concerned would invite an inference of the purported libelous matter holding truth whereupon obviously any inculpation of the accused would be unwarranted. Necessarily when the aforesaid inferences stand invited by delay occurring on the part of the aggrieved to promptly report his grievance qua damage accruing to his reputation in society arising from publication of a purportedly libelous matter, it would be inappropriate to conclude qua his holding a leverage, to, on the anvil of the offence of defamation being a continuing one, institute a complaint beyond three years elapsing since the publication of a purportedly libelous matter. Predominantly also when damage or injury to his image or reputation in society arises from publication of a purportedly libelous matter, the apt concomitant thereof is qua with his apposite sensitivities standing instantaneously impaired his standing enjoined to with utmost promptitude therefrom galvanize the criminal machinery contrarily any procrastination on the part of the aggrieved in instituting the apposite complaint cannot be brooked. In sequel, it is held that the offence of defamation inflicts an instantaneous apposite injury upon the aggrieved whereupon it is to be construable for reasons aforestated to be not constituting a continuing offence nor it can be deduced qua the apposite injury to the reputation of the aggrieved in society perennially enduring nor also hence the counsel for the petitioner can draw benefit from the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 RCR (Criminal) 503 to espouse herebefore qua his throughout the currency of the criminal proceedings against him standing inflicted with subsisting damage to his reputation in society besides he is baulked to canvass qua the apposite damage or injury to his esteem in society perennially continuing nor he holds any leverage to at any time prefer the apposite complaint before the Magistrate concerned. Any acceptance of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner would negate the effect of the aforereferred inference drawn by this Court inferences whereof stand spurred for want of the aggrieved not galvanizing with promptitude the criminal machinery. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended qua on the date of of the respondent herein arriving in the Court premises for giving evidence she outside the Court room in the presence of many persons passing sarcastic remarks qua him whereupon he contends qua a fresh cause of action standing spurred rendering hence his complaint to fall within limitation. Also thereupon, he contends on the anvil of a verdict of the Orissa High Court holding a pronouncement therein qua no application, for exercise of powers within the ambit of the non obstante clause of Section 473, Cr.P.C., by the Magistrate concerned, standing enjoined to be preferred thereat whereas the Court concerned on existence therebefore of circumstances in explanation of delay, holding an empowerment to condone the delay in the preferment of the apposite complaint therebefore. He also espouses herebefore of the aforesaid factum constituting a formidable explication within ambit of the non obstante clause of Section 473 of the Cr.P.C., whereupon the delay, if any, in the preferment of the apposite complaint before the Magistrate concerned standing explained besides renewing the cause of action rendering hence his complaint to be maintainable. He also espouses herebefore of the aforesaid factum constituting a formidable explication within ambit of the non obstante clause of Section 473 of the Cr.P.C., whereupon the delay, if any, in the preferment of the apposite complaint before the Magistrate concerned standing explained besides renewing the cause of action rendering hence his complaint to be maintainable. However, as aptly concluded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the aforesaid espousal in purported explanation of the delay which has occurred in the preferment of the apposite complaint warrants its rejection significantly for omission in the complaint of the date whereon the apposite derogatory remarks stood proclaimed by the respondent herein besides given absence of an averment therein besides lack of testification by the complainant qua the persons in whose presence the purported sarcastic remarks stood pronounced by the respondent herein. Consequently, the aforesaid submission holds no vigour and stands rejected. 8. Uncontrovertedly, the petitioner herein in sequel to a Court of law pronouncing an order of acquittal vis-a-vis the charge to which he stood subjected to besides tried, has instituted a suit for malicious prosecution vis-a-vis the respondent herein. The aforesaid institution of a suit for malicious prosecution by the petitioner herein against the respondent herein constituted the apposite remedy for redressing his grievance arising from his standing subjected to prosecution by the respondent herein, prosecution whereof he avers to arise from malice. Obviously, hence, the criminal complaint instituted under Section 500 of the IPC by the petitioner herein against the respondent herein on his standing acquitted by Courts of law is an inappropriate remedy besides its availment stands prohibited by a judgment recorded by the Karnataka High Court reported in V. Narayana Bhat v. E. Subbanna Bhat, AIR 1975 Karnataka 162 wherein a mandate is held of a complaint made to the police even if it stands stained with vice of falsity, it being construable to be privileged whereupon even if the aggrieved accused therein stands subjected to unsuccessful prosecution, his holding no empowerment to prosecute the complainant therein for an offence under Section 500 IPC. The relevant paragraph No.7 of the judgment aforesaid stands extracted hereinafter:- ?7. The reason why absolute privilege is extended to the statement of a witness made prior to the commencement of a judicial proceeding is based on public policy as stated by Lord Halsbury in 1905 AC 480. The relevant paragraph No.7 of the judgment aforesaid stands extracted hereinafter:- ?7. The reason why absolute privilege is extended to the statement of a witness made prior to the commencement of a judicial proceeding is based on public policy as stated by Lord Halsbury in 1905 AC 480. There is no reason why the principle stated in the said decision should not be extended to a party and the absolute privilege confined only to the statement of a witness under such circumstances. Of the two instances referred to by Blagden J. in ILR (1943) 1 Cal 250 the first refers to the editor of a newspaper as stated above. But it is doubtful whether the editor of the newspaper in such circumstances can claim absolute privilege on the basis of the principle laid down in 1905 AC 480. With regard to the second illustration referred to by Blagden J., if the complaint to the police results in an unsuccessful prosecution then the person defamed can only claim damages for malicious prosecution and not for defamation. In case the complaint to the police does not result in a prosecution, then also the persons defamed have no remedy in respect of defamatory statements made in such a complaint to the police. But if a false complaint is made to the police, the person who makes such a false complaint would be punishable either under Section 182 or Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. It cannot therefore be said that a person against whom false charges are made in a complaint to the police, even if no further action is taken by the police authorities on such complaint, goes scot-free. I would, therefore, prefer to follow the earlier view of the Division Bench of the same High Court in AIR 1939 Cal 477 and the other decisions referred to above which take the view that a complaint to a police officer is absolutely privileged.? In view of the mandate held therewithin especially when the petitioner has extantly launched an inappropriate remedy against the respondent herein comprised in his instituting the instant complaint against her, it hence warrants its dismissal. Furthermore, permitting availment of the remedy canvassed herebefore by the petitioner herein would entail an unbefitting smothering of penal misdemeanors also would stifle prosecution of an accused for serious offences holding loud pronouncements of his indulging in moral turpitude. Furthermore, permitting availment of the remedy canvassed herebefore by the petitioner herein would entail an unbefitting smothering of penal misdemeanors also would stifle prosecution of an accused for serious offences holding loud pronouncements of his indulging in moral turpitude. Necessarily, for obviating the aforesaid casualties to prosecuting an accused for serious offences, the remedy to him on his unsuccessful prosecution cannot be the one agitated in the extant complaint. 9. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has canvassed of the impugned order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge being an interlocutory order whereupon it is unamenable for interference by this Court. However, the aforesaid contention is meritless. The order summoning the respondent herein as pronounced by the learned trial Magistrate, for reasons aforesaid, when arises from gross mis-appreciation by him of the import of the provisions of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. also when the apposite complaint for the reasons aforestated is not maintainable, any holding of the respondent to prosecution would tantamount to a gross abuse of process of law. In aftermath the summoning order is to be construed to be substantially affecting the rights of the respondent herein to not stand subjected to a frivolous prosecution whereupon it is to be construable to be interfereable by the revisional Court. 10. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, there is no merit in the instant petition, accordingly it is dismissed. The order impugned hereat is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.