1 By an order dated 6-10-2005 passed by the learned single Judge, this petition is referred to this Bench under S. 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act for hearing and disposing of, as the question of law regarding limitation for taking cognizance under S. 468(1) of the CrPC arises for consideration.

2 Petitioners 1 and 2 who have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC No. 18073/1999 on the file of the VIIIth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore have filed this petition under S. 482, CrPC to quash the proceedings in CC No. 18073/1999.

3 Before adverting to the contentions raised in this criminal petition, it is necessary to narrate the facts and judicial orders which had preceded filing of the complaint by the Registrar (Vigilance) on 25-2-1999 against the petitioners before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
Petitioners 1 and 2 in their capacity as Chairman and Secretary of Sri Kengal Credit Cooperative Society Limited had filed WP No. 16425/1992 for quashing the order stated to have been issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer No. 1, BDA Sub-Division (West) in No. BDA / AEE 1(W) / 42/92-93 dated 13-5-1992, referred to as Annexure - D to the writ petition. Along with the petition, petitioners had produced a copy of Annexure - D and had sought for dispensation of production of the original by filing I.A.I. accompanied by the affidavit filed by the first petitioner. The petitioners had obtained an interim stay of Annexure - D. The first respondent (Bangalore Development Authority) filed an application for vacating the interim order of stay contending that Annexure - D is a forged document and petitioners had forged the same by adding the following : -
"and to demolish the unauthorised structures therein" That on 30-6-1992 the said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn."

4 On 11-8-1992 first respondent in WP No. 16425/1992 filed I.A. No. III under S. 340 of CrPC praying the Court to take cognizance of the offence (forgery) committed by the petitioners in the said proceedings or in the alternative, to refer the matter to jurisdictional Magistrate to take action against the petitioners in accordance with law.
This application was resisted by the petitioners. The learned single Judge, by order dated 3-8-1993 directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore to investigate the report as to whether Annexure - D has been forged and whether petitioners are responsible for the same.
The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, after holding a detailed enquiry, submitted a report on 4-11-1993 opining that there had been a prima facie case of forging the document Annexure - D and also held that petitioners had produced a copy of the forged document as Annexure - D knowing that it was a forged document or had reasons to believe that it was a fraudulent document.
After receipt of the report, the learned single Judge, by order dated 18-2-1997 considering the nature and importance of the matter, referred the matter to the Division Bench under S.8 and S.9 of the High Court Act.

5 The Division Bench of this Court heard the parties on IA III and by order dated 4-1-1999 accepted the enquiry report dated 3-11-1993 submitted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. On consideration of the material on record and the enquiry report, this Court, prima facie, opined that the document Annexure - D, a forged document was used by the petitioners in WP No. 16425/1992 with the dishonest intention to seek relief and the petitioners, prima facie, appear to have committed an offence of forgery punishable under S. 471 of IPC; therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice, the petitioners shall be prosecuted for the said offence before the competent Criminal Court and directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to lodge a complaint with the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for taking necessary steps towards effective prosecution of the case against both petitioners in accordance with law.

6 In pursuance