Point of Law : Language of Section 468(3) makes it imperative that the limitation provided for taking cognizance is in respect of the offence charged and not in respect of offence finally proved.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Section 482 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the petitioners, namely, Shri Pallab Das & Shri Biplab Das, for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24.01.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, and further proceedings of the C.R. Case No. 157/2016, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai. It is to be mentioned here that vide the impugned order, dated 24.01.2018, the learned Court below had taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 120(B)/500/211 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons against the petitioners.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:

“On 11.06.2012, one Smti Anjana Roy lodged an FIR alleging inter alia amongst others that the respondent No. 1, taking advantage of the misunderstanding between her and her husband, which lead to the atmosphere of separation between them, used to maintain love affairs with her, under the false promise of marrying her and maintained illicit relationship with her and even misappropriated her golden ornaments and thereby cheated her. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the respondent No. 2 had forcibly raped her several times in an isolated room and also threatened her with dire consequences if she divulge the occurrence to the police. Upon receipt of the aforesaid F.I.R., the Officer-In-Charge, Hojai Police Station registered the case, being Hojai P.S. Case No. 169/12, under Sections 493/376/506/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and started investigation which culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet against the respondent No. 2-Shri Ramakrishna Ghosh. The learned SDJM, Hojai, thereafter, committed the case, being G.R. Case No. 758/2012, to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nagaon, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 180(N)/2013 and, accordingly, on 26.06.2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nagaon, framed charges against the respondent No. 2-Shri Ramakrishna Ghose under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, on 20.05.2015, evidences were led before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nagaon, by the victim-Smti Anjana Roy and her husband, Shri Shamal Ray, wherein, it has been stated that the F.I.R. was lodged under duress and the dictate of the petitioners. Thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nagaon, vide its judgment, dated 30.06.2015, found respondent No. 2 not guilty for the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, acquitted him from the offence and set him at liberty. Thereafter, in the year 2016, the respondent No. 1-Shri Ajay Ghosh lodged a Complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, Nagaon, Assam, which is being registered as C.R. Case No. 157/2016, against the present petitioners and Smti Anjana Roy, alleging that as the petitioners, with a common intention, dictated Smti Anjana Roy to lodge a false F.I.R. and as such, they have committed offence under Sections 500/501(B)/503/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, on 24.01.2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, having been found primafacie material, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 120(B)/500/211 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons against Smti Anjana Roy and the petitioners, namely, Shri Pallab Das & Shri Biplab Das to appear before him and to stand trial.”

3. Then, being highly aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the instant petition on the following grounds :

(i) That, the learned Court below has committed manifest error in law as well as in facts in taking cognizance of the offence alleged and ordering issuing summons against the petitioners;

(ii) That, the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the provision of