R. Suresh Kumar, J.

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed in C.M.P. No. 4637 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Erode, dated 27.09.2016.

The short facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this revision case are as follows:

2. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the respondent police against the private respondents for taking action on the alleged offences punishable under Sections 324 and 341 of IPC. An FIR was registered on 30.03.2011. Pursuant to which, after investigation, the respondent police has sent a report in R.C.S. No. 8 of 2011 stating that no crime has been made out and therefore, the reference report has been sent to the concerned Magistrate Court.

3. However, since no notice or information given to the defacto complainant before sending RCS to the learned Magistrate, the petitioner/defacto complainant had approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P. No. 19037 of 2015, wherein this Court directed the respondent police to give notice to the defacto complainant and thereafter, proceed the matter. Accordingly, notice was given to the petitioner/defacto complainant, which triggered the petitioner to file a protest petition by way of private complaint before the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P. No. 4637 of 2016. This protest petition/private complaint having been taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate, Sworn Statements of PW 1 to PW3 had been taken. After taking Sworn Statements from the petitioner's side, instead of proceed the matter to decide the issue, the learned Magistrate seems to have taken a route, in view of the bar under section 468 of Cr.P.C, 1973 where some time limit has been prescribed, in which cognizance should have been taken by the concerned Judicial Magistrate depending upon the offence/punishment and ultimately, has dismissed the said protest petition/private complaint of the petitioner through the impugned order dated 27.09.2016. Against which, the present revision has been filed.

4. I have heard Mr. A. Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. In spite of notices have been served and their names also printed in the cause list, none of the private respondents have appeared before this Court.

6. I have also heard Mr. R. Sekar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 3rd respondent.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that no doubt, there is a time limit prescribed under section 468 of Cr.P.C., 1973 Since the offences alleged against the private respondents accused persons are punishable under Sections 324 and 341 of IPC for a punishment of two years period. Therefore, the limitation for taking cognizance of the offences, shall be three years, from the date of occurrence, within the meaning of Section 468(2)(c) of the Code. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that there is no hard and fast rule that the said period has to be strictly construed, in view of the provision under Section 473 of the Code, which empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance even beyond the period as prescribed under Section 468 of the code.

8. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that after the complaint having been taken by the respondent police, after investigation, before sending the RCS to the concerned Magistrate, no notice has been given to the defacto complainant. Though it is mandatory on the part of the respondent police to inform the defacto complainant the same has not been done. Hence, the petitioner had filed Criminal Original Petition before this Court, and only after getting directions from this Court, the respondent police has given notice to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner has filed this protest petition/private complaint.

9. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that the prescribed period of limitation as contemplated under Section 468(2)(c) of