The limitation prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure is for the filing of the complaint or initiation of the prosecution, not for taking cognizance.

H.R. Panwar, J.-This Criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 111.2003 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh (for short the trial Court hereinafter) whereby the trial Court took cognizance of offences under Section 323, 341,504 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners.

2. Aggrieved by the order impugned taking cognizance, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned. I have carefully gone through the statement of the complainants Jagdish CW-1, Narayan Das CW-2 and Raju Sunar CW-3 recorded by the trial Court under Section 200, 202 of the Code.

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court fell in error in taking cognizance against the petitioners after expiry of the period of limitation. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that occurrence is of dated 17.05.2002 whereas the trial Court took cognizance of offence on 111.2003 after expiry of period of one year from the date of occurrence.

5. It is further contended that from the bare perusal of entire record, no offence under Section 504 IPC is made out even the evidence adduced by the complainant is taken in entirety on its face value.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the contesting non-petitioner submits that soon after occurrence, a complaint was filed before the trial Court on 18.05.2002, which was sent to Police, by the trial Court under Section 156(3) of the Code for investigation. The Police registered the crime report on 07.06.2002 and filed a negative report on 26.06.2002. Thereafter, a notice of F.R. was served to the complainant and complainant filed a protest petition before the trial Court. The trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant on 211.2002 and the other witnesses on 20.01.2003 and thereafter, proceeded to take cognizance by order-dated 111.2003. The period of limitation for taking cognizance has to be counted from the date complaint was filed and not the date on which the trial Court passed the order. The trial Court kept the matter pending for years together and passes the order by the time the period of limitation expires, the complainant cannot be made to suffer only on technicalities of limitation.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties.

8. So far as contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regards to order of cognizance being barred by limitation, the contention deserves to be rejected in view of the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr. vs. State of A.P., 2003 (7) Supreme 736 wherein the Apex Court held as under:-

“A cumulative reading of various provisions of the said chapter clearly indicates that the limitation prescribed therein is only for the filling of the complaint or initiation of the prosecution and not for taking cognizance. It of course prohibits the Court from taking cognizance of an offence where the complaint is filed before the Court after the expiry of the period mentioned in the said Chapter. This is clear from Section 469 of the Code found in the said Chapter which specifically says that the period of limitation in relation to an offence shall commence either from the date of the offence or from the date when the offence is detected. Section 471 indicates while computing the period of limitation, time taken during which the case was being diligently prosecuted in another Court or in appeal or in revision against the offender should be excluded. The said Section also provides in the explanation that in computing the time required for obtaining the consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority should be excluded. Similarly, the period during which the Court was closed will also have to be excluded. All these p