A court has the power to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the Code if the cognizance of the offence was taken after the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code.

P. K. TRIPATHY, J.

( 1 ) IN this application u/s. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'), petitioner who is one of the accused persons in the complaint case vide I. C. C. No. 4 of 1991 of the Court of S. D. J. M. , Bhanjanagar, has challenged legality and sustainability of the order of taking cognizance vide order dated 1-5-1991. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are the co-accused and opposite party No. 3 is the complainant in that case.

( 2 ) BETWEEN 10. 30 A. M. and 11 A. M. on 8-1-1989 an occurrence involving violence occurred at Sandeep Talkies of Bhanjanagar in which the opposite party No. 3 sustained a bullet injury fired from a revolver. Opposite party No. 1 was the manager of that cinema hall and petitioner No. 1, being a Police Officer who had come to depose as witness in the local judicial Court, was a visitor in that cinema hall at the time of occurrence. On the basis of the report of the opposite party No. 1 police registered a case against the complainant/opposite party No. 3 and others (as his associates ). In that case charge sheet was filed and the accused persons were committed to the Court of Session and after the trial opposite party no. 3 was convicted for the offence u/s. 307, I. P. C. vide judgment and conviction order dated 28-4-90 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1989. The information lodged by the opposite party No. 3 was resulted in submission of final report and as alleged by the petitioner, without considering its acceptance or refusal opposite party No. 3 was noticed and his second complaint petition was accepted and enquired into u/s. 202 of the Code and the impugned order of cognizance of the offence u/s. 307, 294, 506/34, I. P. C. was taken and also order was passed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest (in short, 'nbwa' ).

( 3 ) AS it reveals from the L. C. R. i. e. the case record of the I. C. C. No. 4 of 1991 that the co-accused, i. e. , the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the impugned order in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 1991 of the Court of 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur (C. R. P. No. 64/91 GDC) raising similar contentions as in this case and on 24-3-1992 that revision was dismissed on merit. Their applications u/s. 482 of the Code vide Crl. Misc. Case No. 1359 of 1992 filed against the revisional order was dismissed for default on 24-1-1994.

( 4 ) GROUNDS advanced by the petitioner are that, the protest petition was filed twice in January, 1991 though final form (i. e. the final report) was received by the learned S. D. J. M. in G. R. Case No. 11 of 1989 on 17-6-89 and in spite of the delay the protest petition was accepted and the second petition was registered as I. C. C. No. 4/91 and, therefore, taking of cognizance of the offence after being barred by time in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 468 of the Code and that sanction of the State Government u/s. 197 of the Code is required to prosecute the petitioner. It is also stated that without any specific order being passed in accepting or rejecting the final report, learned S. D. J. M. should not have proceeded with the complaint case.

( 5 ) BOTH the parties advanced their respective arguments, but no written notes of submission was filed by either of the parties. After perusal of the record and due consideration of the rival contentions it is felt expedient in the interest of justice that instead of deciding the issues here, it is just and proper to dispose of the case with a direction that the petitioner, who has not yet appeared in the lower Court, shall submit to that jurisdiction and if so advised, file a petition within twenty days hence setting forth the grounds of challenging the cognizance order with the prayer to recall the same and a copy of the said petition be served on the opposite party No. 3 through his counsel and in that event learned S. D. J. M. may do well to hear and dispose of that application on merit and in accordance with law notwi