MANOJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dtd. 3/4/2014 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 Sec. 323 IPC.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the date of alleged offence is 5/9/2012 while time barred cognizance has been taken against the petitioners vide order dtd. 3/4/2014.

(3.) Counsel submits that as per the provisions contained under Sec. 468 Cr.P.C., the limitation for taking cognizance is one year. Counsel submits that looking to the provisions contained under Sec. 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 Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases and Ors. reported in 2014 CRl.L.J. 586.