JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs :-

“It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that the application filed by the petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be allowed and:

(i) The order dated 07-09-19 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Jodhpur Metropolitan in criminal revision No. 25/19 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The order dated 08-07-19 passed by learned ACMM, PCPNDT, Jodhpur Metropolitan in criminal case No. 1092/19 (State V/s Rakesh Gehlot) by which the charges were framed, may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that it is the version of the prosecution, the complainant respondent no. 2, Smt. Sarita w/o Petitioner No.1 Rakesh Gehlot married him on 31.03.2013, as per Hindu rituals. And that, after marriage, she was harassed by her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law with demands for dowry. And that, on 24.01.2014, a daughter was born to the couple, and owing to the fact that a son was not born to them, the harassment meted out to her by the aforementioned increased, and the corresponding demand for dowry was increased, to an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. And that, on 19.04.2015, the stri-dhan of the complainant-wife was taken by the accused persons and she was ousted from her matrimonial home. And that, when she along with her father returned to her matrimonial home, with the intention that she return to her matrimonial home, she was denied the same and demands for dowry were continued to be made. And that, a complaint was lodged by the complainant-wife against her husband and in-laws, on the basis of which an F.I.R. was lodged against them, and investigation was conducted. And that, upon the completion of the same the police chargesheeted the petitioner no. 1, the husband and petitioner no. 2, the mother in law, of the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners preferred an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the charges levelled against them, but that the same was rejected by the learned Magistrate Court after hearing, vide order dated 08-07-2019 and ordered that charges be framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498 (A), 406 I.P.C. And that, consequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition against the said order, which also came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07-09-2019.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the maximum imprisonment under the Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and Section 323 I.P.C. is 3 years and 1 year respectively, and that under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the limitation period for taking cognizance against the petitioners is 3 years for the above mentioned offences.

Section 468 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinunder for the sake of brevity :-

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 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.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that from the bare perusal of the F.I.R., it is revealed that the petitioner left the house of the petitioners on 19.04.2015, and the date of lodging