C.R. Sarma, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Chouhan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, for the State respondent and Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the informant. By this application filed under Section 482/401Cr.P.C., the petitioners, who are the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 6285/2010 have challenged the order dated 26.12.2012 whereby the learned SDJM, No. 2(S), Kamrup (M), Guwahati has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under Sections447/323/34 IPC in connection with the said G.R. Case. The private respondent as informant lodged the FIR on 22.08.2010 alleging therein, that on 21.08.2010 the petitioners along with 7/8 persons unauthorisedly entered his premises and assaulted him and his brother Sri Ranjit Das causing injuries to their person. On receipt of the said FIR police registered a case under Sections 447/323/34 IPC and launched investigation into the matter. At the close of the investigation police submitted charge-sheet on 30.09.2010 against the petitioners for committing the offence under Sections 447/323/34 IPC. On receipt of the said charge-sheet, the learned CJM, Kamrup by his order dated 26.12.2012 passed in G.R. Case No. 6285/2010 took cognizance of the offence under Section 447/323/34 IPC against the petitioners and fixed the case on 11.03.2013 for appearance Aggrieved by taking of cognizance after the statutory period prescribed by Section 468(B) Cr.P.C. the petitioners have come up with this petition for quashing the said proceeding pending before the learned SDJM No. 2(S), Kamrup (M). Referring to the provision of Section 468(B) Cr.P.C. the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the maximum period of punishment provided for the offence under Sections 447/323/34 IPC not being more than one year, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance within one year from the date of offence and that the order taking cognizance, after the prescribed period of one year, cannot stand in the eye of law. Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the informant referring to the provision of 473 Cr.P.C. has submitted that there is provision for extension of period of limitation in certain cases and that the Magistrate has the power to condone the delay and take cognizance after the prescribe period.

2. Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, has fairly submitted that though the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet after completing the investigation within 2 months from the date of the occurrence. The cognizance of offence was taken after about 2 years 4 months from the date of occurrence i.e. 21.08.2010.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, I find that there is no dispute that the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 26.12.2012 i.e. after statutory period prescribed by Section 468(2)(b). Section 468 has provided the period of limitation of taking cognizance. The said Section 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.

(3) For the purpose 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.

As provided by Section 468(2)(b) the period, within which cognizance in respect of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding on