Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard Mr. K. N. Chaubey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh for the opposite party no.2 as also Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the Complaint Case No. 2678 (C) of 2014 filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth for short 'the 2005 Act').

3. As per the complaint, the opposite party no.2 Vandana Srivastava was married to Niraj Kumar Srivastava (petitioner no.3) on 12.6.2011. It has been alleged that at the time of 'Sindur Dan' itself, demand of a four wheeler or Rs. 5 lakh was made. As already Rs. 12 lakh was given and further ornaments worth of Rs. 2 lakh was also presented, her father was unable to pay the amount and when they again created the same situation at the time of 'Bidai', her father finally relented and assured that the amount will be given.

4. However, as her father failed to pay the amount, she was always tortured for dowry. In between, a female child was born on 25.4.2012 at Jalandhar where her husband was posted. Further, she was regularly abused/assaulted by her husband and the allegation is that on 1.6.2012, her husband and father-in-law forcibly put her in a car and made her leave in laws' place for her parents home. Although, the complainant tried her level best to compromise the matter, as they did not relented, the FIR vide Ara-Nawada P.S. Case No. 326 of 2012 was lodged followed by the present complaint petition under 'the 2005 Act'.

5. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. K. N. Chaubey, raised technical points in the matter. According to him, from the complaint petition, it is clear that the alleged assault took place on 1.6.2012 whereas the complaint was filed on 21.11.2014 under 'the 2005 Act'. He submits that the maximum period of punishment is one year and as the petition was filed beyond one year, the same was not maintainable in the light of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.. He has drawn attention of this Court to section 468 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as follows: –

468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. – (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only, (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. 2[(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.]

6. He as such submits that the complaint preferred by the opposite party no.2 is in the teeth of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. and thus the same is fit to be quashed.

7. The second point taken by the learned Senior Counsel is that as the entire occurrence took place in Jalandhar (Punjab), under no circumstances, the complaint could have been lodged at Bhojpur at Ara and on this account also, the order needs interference.

8. In support of his point of filing complaint beyond the period of limitation is impermissible, he has drawn attention of this Court to an order of Patna High Court in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2017(4) BBCJ 163 which read as follows: –

“Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 r/w Sections 18, 19, 20 and 27 of the Domestic Violence Act- Complaint filed in the Present case after the expiry of the period of limitation- Complaint under the D.V. Act be filed only within a period of one year