JUDGMENT

N.P. SINGH, J.- Leave granted.

2. The validity of an order passed by the High Court, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), quashing the criminal proceeding which had been initiated against the accused-respondents, has been questioned in this appeal.

3. The appellant filed a petition of complaint against her husband, accused-respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent"), alleging that she was married to the said respondent and an amount of Rs 5000 along with gold ring and wrist watch, was given to him on the eve of the marriage. Later at the instance of her mother-in-law, who was also made an accused, she was being maltreated and even abused by the accused persons including her husband. She further alleged that her husband often used to beat her and had been insisting that she should get another sum of Rs 10,000 from her parents for his business. Ultimately, the respondent married again and has got a second wife. The other accused persons have actively associated themselves with the second marriage. It was stated that earlier she had lodged a first information report, but when no action was taken by the police, the complaint aforesaid was being filed in the year 1990. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Penal Code against the accused persons.

4. The High Court on an application filed on behalf of the accused-respondents under Section 482 of the Code, quashed the said criminal proceeding saying that after expiry of the period of three years, no cognizance for an offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code could have been taken. The High Court has pointed out that according to the statement made by the complainant, she had left the matrimonial house in the year 1985 and, as such, she must have been subjected to cruelty during the period prior to 1985. As such, in view of Section 468 of the Code, no cognizance for an offence under Section 498-A could have been taken in the year 1990. The High Court has also pointed out that there was discrepancy in respect of the date of second marriage of respondent, inasmuch as in the petition of complaint May 4, 1990 has been mentioned as the date of the second marriage whereas in the statement recorded on solemn affirmation the appellant has stated that he had married in the year 1986. According to the learned Judge, as Section 498-A prescribes punishment up to three years imprisonment only, the petition of complaint should have been filed within three years from the year 1985 in view of Section 468 of the Code. Nothing has been said in the order of the High Court, so far the offence under Section 494 is concerned, for which the period of imprisonment prescribed is up to seven years. There cannot be any dispute that in view of the allegation regarding the second marriage by the respondent during the continuance of the first marriage, prima facie an offence under Section 494 of the Penal Code was disclosed in the complaint and there was no question of Section 468 of the Code being applicable to an offence under Section 494 of the Penal Code.

5. Earlier there was no period of limitation for launching a prosecution against the accused. But delay in initiating the action for prosecution was always considered to be a relevant factor while judging the truth of the prosecution story. But, then a court could not throw out a complaint or a police report solely on the ground of delay. The Code introduced a separate chapter prescribing limitations for taking cognizance of certain offences. It was felt that as time passes the testimony of witnesses becomes weaker and weaker because of lapse of memory and the deterrent effect of punishment is impaired, if prosecution was not launched and punishment was not inflicted before the offence had been wiped off from the memory of persons concerned. With the aforesaid object in view Section 468 of the Code prescr