ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 03.04.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate No. 24, Bassi Jaipur, Metropolitan (for short, 'learned Magistrate') in criminal case No. 460/2014 by which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 323 IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the date of alleged offence is 05.09.2012 while time barred cognizance has been taken against the petitioners vide order dated 03.04.2014. Counsel submits that as per the provisions contained under Section 468 Cr.P.C., the limitation for taking cognizance is one year. Counsel submits that looking to the provisions contained under Section 468 Cr.P.C., cognizance has been taken against the petitioner after expiry of the period of limitation. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases and Ors. reported in 2014 CRl.L.J. 586.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that for the incident dated 05.09.2014, the FIR was registered on the same day that is within the period of limitation. Counsel submits that if the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on a subsequent date, the same cannot be treated as time barred. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, hence the interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the rival submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record.

5. This fact is not in dispute that for the alleged incident dated 05.09.2012, the FIR was lodged on the same day. After investigation, police has submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners for the offence under Section 323 Cr.P.C. upon which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners vide order dated 03.04.2014 by the learned Magistrate.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Damodar Kale and Anr. v. State of A.P, reported in AIR 2003 SC 4560 has held that if the complaint/FIR is filed within the time period of limitation and cognizance is taken on a subsequent date, the cognizance cannot be treated as time barred. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court:-

"On facts of this case and based on the arguments advanced before us we consider it appropriate to decide the question whether the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code apply to delay in instituting the prosecution or to delay in taking cognizance. As noted above according to learned counsel for the appellants the limitation prescribed under the above Chapter applies to taking of cognizance by the concerned court therefore even if a complaint is filed within the period of limitation mentioned in the said Chapter of the Code, if the cognizance is not taken within the period of limitation the same gets barred by limitation. This argument seems to be inspired by the Chapter-Heading of Chapter XXXVI of the Code which reads thus : "Limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences". It is primarily based on the above language of the Heading of the Chapter the argument is addressed on behalf of the appellants that the limitation prescribed by the said Chapter applies to taking of cognizance and not filing of complaint or initiation of the prosecution. We cannot accept such argument because a cumulative reading of various provisions of