Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Case No. 198 of 2009 (Suryanath v. Ramanand and others) whereby the learned Magistrate has summoned the revisionists to face the trial for the offences under Section 323 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the wife of revisionist No. 1 namely Smt Savitri had lodged an FIR on 6.11.2008 against the opposite party No. 2 vide Case Crime No. 1064 of 2008 alleging therein that there is a long drawn enmity between the family of opposite party No. 2 and her family members on account of some land dispute regarding which a case is already pending in the Civil Court. It was stated that on 6.11.2008 at about 10 a.m. in the morning sons of opposite party No. 2 and others armed with lathi, barcha and bhala attacked his son Santosh Rai, who was cultivating his rice field. When her husband and sons namely Ashok and Prabhakar and others reached the place of ocurrence they were also assaulted. On the intervention of neighbours, assailants fled away from the spot. Pursuant to the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the opposite party No. 2 and his sons.

3. It is alleged that opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereupon a cross FIR vide Case Crime No. 1064 A of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 308 IPC was registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Mau. Subsequent to the investigation, the police submitted the final report on 23.5.2009. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 filed a protest petition against the said final report which was allowed by the Court below and the Investigating Officer of the case was directed to conduct further investigation. Investigating Officer again submitted the final report in the case, which was rejected by the Court below vide order dated 11.11.2010 and the revisionists were summoned to face the trial for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Hence this revision.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has challenged the impugned summoning order on the ground that the incident took place on 6.11.2008 while the summoning order was passed on 11.11.2010 and therefore the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is clearly barred by the limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C.

6. To the contrary, learned AGA submitted that the impugned order is just and there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. The impugned summoning order was passed after perusal of the statements of the injured recorded during investigation and the injury reports of the opposite party No. 2 and his son.

7. It is relevant to note that the offence under Section 323 IPC is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and the limitation for taking cognizance of such offence under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is one year. Further, Section 469 Cr.P.C. provides that the period of limitation in relation to an offender shall commence from the date of offence or from the first day on which offence comes into the knowledge of such persons or to any police officer, whichever is earlier.

8. From the perusal of record, it is evident that pursuant to application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party No. 2 an FIR was registered on 12.5.2009 in respect of the incident occurred on 6.11.2008. Subsequent to investigation final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the police. On the protest petition of the opposite party No. 2 Investigation Officer of the case was directed to conduct further investigation. The proceedings prior to summoning order dated 11.11.2010 cannot be included within the limitation period in view of the judgement in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:

“...To us, two things, namely; (1) filing of