ORDER : 1. This Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Criminal Revision No.74/2022 whereby the order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Complaint Case No.1789/2022 registering the offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant has filed a Complaint Case on 25.04.2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Abmikapur alleging that he is an acclaimed academician and has served as a Chief Proctor of the Sant Gahira Guru University, Surguja, Ambikapur and has also served as Chief Proctor of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai and Respondent No.1 has served as Ex-Vice Chancellor of Sant Gahira Guru University, Surguja, Ambikapur. The Complainant has also filed a complaint against Respondent No.1 and 3 other employees of the said University under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C at P.S. Nevai, District Durg vide Crime No.251/22 for the offence under Sections 418, 467, 468 and 471 IPC for making unauthorized and forged entries in his service book and Respondent No.1 was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.08.2022 passed in M.Cr.C(A) No.1004/2022. The Petitioner in person has alleged in the complaint that Respondent No.1, with mala fide intention of harassing the Complainant and without having any authority, wrongly constituted a two-member Committee on 20.07.2018 and as such, no incident took place on the said date. The Petitioner submits that on the said date, he went to the chamber of Respondent No.1 for obtaining administrative sanction of Rs.1 lac for the purpose of his wife’s uterus surgery which was scheduled on 20.07.2018, but Respondent No.1 has thrown away the file in an undignified manner and thus insulted him and also made false allegation that he had threatened to kill him. On the next day i.e. 21.07.2018, he submitted his explanation before the higher officials of the University and thereafter, without providing an opportunity of hearing, in contravention of natural justice for commitment of financial irregularities, the Petitioner was suspended from his services on 18.10.2018. The Petitioner has made a representation before the Chancellor/Hon’ble Governor of the University against Respondent No.1 and his suspension was revoked vide order dated 29.01.2019. The Petitioner has made a representation before the Chancellor/Hon’ble Governor of the University against Respondent No.1 and his suspension was revoked vide order dated 29.01.2019. Thereafter, without observing the service norms, by showing that the Petitioner has completed 5 years of service, he has been removed from his services on 31.08.2019 in an arbitrary manner and with a mala fide intention, the relevant note-sheet of 4 pages was removed from the record and to defame him, the aforesaid incident was published in different newspapers, electronic media as also on whatsapp. With regard to the representation of the Petitioner, the Senior Office Chancellor/Hon’ble Governor has constituted a 3- member Committee headed by Dr. RK Brahme, Shri R.N. Singh and Shri Pankaj Sidar, who found that on 21.04.2021, the entries made in the service book of the Petitioner were forged and at the behest of Respondent No.1, the sub-ordinates of the Petitioner have also admitted the same during enquiry. The Petitioner has examined himself and also examined the witnesses namely Vijay Kumar Shukla (CW-2), Piyush Rai (CW-3), Nirvikar Goutam (CW-4) and Dr. Robin Thomas (CW-5) under Section 202 Cr.P.C. After considering the statement of the Complainant/Petitioner and his witnesses, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 12.07.2022, has registered an offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC against Respondent No.1. against which, Respondent No.1 has preferred a Criminal Revision before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja in which, by way of the order impugned, the order taking cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was set aside. 3. The Petitioner in person submits that the order impugned is not sustainable and contrary to the record and is also bad in law. He drew the attention of this Court to the proceedings contained in the note-sheet recorded on 19.03.2020 in which, it has been mentioned that in the appointment letter of the Petitioner or even in the advertisement published, there was no stipulation that the appointment of the Petitioner was only for a period of 5 years, hence, his removal from the service is not justifiable and he was appointed as per Section 49(2) of the University Act and it was also observed that there was some previous malice between him and Respondent No.1. 4. Upon being asked, the Petitioner informs the Court that Respondent No.1 was removed from the post of Vice-Chancellor on 03.01.2020. 4. Upon being asked, the Petitioner informs the Court that Respondent No.1 was removed from the post of Vice-Chancellor on 03.01.2020. He lastly submits that the action taken by Respondent No.1 was not in good faith and the same is punishable under Section 500 IPC for defamation and prays to quash the order passed by the revisional Court and restore the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 5. Heard the Petitioner present in person and also examined the entire record with utmost circumspection. 6. After going through the entire record, this Court finds that the incident took place on 20.07.2018 for which, the Petitioner/Complainant had approached PS Manipur, Ambikapur, District Surguja on 04.09.2018 i.e. after about 1 ½ months of the said incident, wherein he was advised to take appropriate legal course available to him before the competent Court. The Petitioner was suspended on 18.10.2018 and Respondent No.1, as a Vice-Chancellor, constituted a 2-member Committee for conducting departmental enquiry against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was removed from services on 31.08.2019 though he was later on reinstated in service by the order of the Chancellor on 29.01.2019 and Respondent No.1 was removed from the job of Vice-Chancellor on 03.01.2020. After 2 years i.e. on 26.04.2022 as per the submission of the Petitioner, he has filed a complaint for the offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that for the offence under Section 500 IPC, cognizance must be taken within a period of 3 years and as per the provision stipulated under Section 468(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’), the limitation becomes significant and the starting point of limitation is that the Petitioner has already approached the police authorities on 04.09.2018. To constitute an offence of defamation, the revisional Court, in the order impugned, has held that the act of Respondent No.1 falls under the seventh exception to Section 499 IPC and the relevant provision reads thus:- “Seventh Exception-Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another- It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.” 8. In the matter of A.D.M. Stubbings vs. Shellamuthu reported in 1971 SCC OnLine Ker 155 : 1972 Cri.LJ. 968 at page 969, it was held that the petitioner after dismissal from service had made a complaint about defamatory imputations against him intending to harm his reputation. While quashing the complaint it was observed that the officers of the Estate were perfectly within their right to have instituted the enquiry and if they are to be hauled up under a charge of defamation, as observed in Halsbury's cited earlier, the administration of justice would be paralyzed and the relevant para-5 reads thus : “5. In Thompson v. British Medical Association ((1924) 93 LJ PC 203) a medical practitioner was declared by the Medical Council to have been guilty of conduct detrimental to the honour and interests of the profession and calculated to bring the profession into disrepute, or to have grossly contravened the custom of the medical profession, or to have acted detrimentally to the interests of the Association or omitted to comply with any rule or resolution of the Association, no member shall consult with, or extend professional recognition in any other form to such practitioner until it shall have been otherwise decided by the Council and held that the making of grossly calumnious charges against his brother professionals was a sufficient ground for the expulsion of a member; and that the communication by the association to its members of the fact that a resolution to expel a member had been carried was made on a privileged occasion, and was not ground for an action for defamation.” 9. It is also pertinent to mention that the Petitioner/Complainant has neither exhibited nor proved the defamatory material while recording his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C nor his witnesses had produced any material or relevant documents based upon which, the defamatory article/news was published. The said contents were not proved during enquiry and in absence of such material things, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, without having the basic foundation for the charge, registered the offence as aforesaid. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that if the allegations in the complaint and the supporting evidence of the Complainant and his witnesses as also the pre-summoning evidence on record are taken at its face value, the same does not constitute the offence for which the complaint was made. 11. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that if the allegations in the complaint and the supporting evidence of the Complainant and his witnesses as also the pre-summoning evidence on record are taken at its face value, the same does not constitute the offence for which the complaint was made. 11. Accordingly, this Court does not find any error or infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the revisional Court for setting aside the order taking cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.07.2022 against Respondent No.1, therefore, no case is made out which may necessitate interference of this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. Resultantly, this Petition, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed.