JUDGMENT 1. - This petition u/s. 482, Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 28th Apr., 89 by which Judicial Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur City, Jaipur, took cognizance against the petitioners u/s. 498-A, IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners narrated the facts of the case and tried to convince the Court that according to non-petitioner No. 2, beating was given to her in March, 86. She kept silent for more than 2 years and then filed a complaint in July, 88. Suffice it to mention here that so far as the facts of the case are concerned, the trial court has taken cognizance on the basis of the record of the case and this Court under inherent powers, should not interfere in the order of taking cognizance, as has been held in a number of cases. 3. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners cited the case of Shiva and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 RCC 93 . That case was also u/s. 482, Cr.P.C., against an order of taking cognizance of some offence and this Court held that no interference was needed in that order, and the petitioner was put at liberty to raise all his objections at the time of arguments for framing of charge before the trial court. 4. Therefore, on the question of fact, no interference is to be made by this Court in an order of taking cognizance. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that he is challenging the order of taking cognizance on some legal point, and his argument is that according to S. 468, Cr.P.C., prosecution of this case was barred by limitation. According to him, the Magistrate has taken cognizance after a lapse of 3 years, which is contrary to the provisions of S. 468(2) (c), Cr.P.C. To support his argument, her replied on the cases of State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1054 and Smt. Sumitra Gupta & ors. v. State, 1980 RCC 343 . I have gone through the above rulings and find that they are not applicable to the case of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the case of Hazi Mannan v. The State of Rajasthan, decided by this Court on 28th Oct., 88 . This case was decided by me. v. State, 1980 RCC 343 . I have gone through the above rulings and find that they are not applicable to the case of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the case of Hazi Mannan v. The State of Rajasthan, decided by this Court on 28th Oct., 88 . This case was decided by me. While referring to para-5 of this judgment, it was argued that in this case, this Court had interfered in the order of taking cognizance, as the cognizance was taken after the expiry of the period of limitation, as prescribed u/s. 468, Cr.P.C. This case was u/s. 323, IPC. The incident had taken place on 7th Oct., 86, and on 4th Jan., 88, the Magistrate took cognizance. While referring to the provisions of law, it was argued that the cognizance was taken after the period of limitation, for which, the Magistrate had no power. 6. The facts of the case of Hazi Mannan (supra) and the present one, are not identical. There, the matter was simply u/s. 323, IPC; and the incident had taken place on 7th Oct., 86. In that matter, there was a cross-complaint also. Both the parties had reported the matter to police and filed private complaints. The Court proceeded u/ss. 200 & 202, Cr.P.C. in both the cases; and after that, cognizance was taken. So, the circumstances of this case are different. The present one is a case between husband and wife. Their marriage took place in 1985; and on account of some differences, non-petitioner Mohini left the house of the petitioner in Jan., 1986. The petitioner then gave a notice for divorce in July, 86, and later on, submitted a divorce-petition in the court. The non-petitioner was served, who filed her reply in Jan., 87 alleging that she was beaten up by her husband; and that, on account of that beating, it was not possible for her to live with him. As stated by Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in her reply, she alleged that in Mar., 86, she was beaten up. From the facts the case is that she was given beating in Mar., 86 while she had left her husband's house in Jan., 86, for which a divorce-petition is pending filed by the husband, while she filed a complaint on 11th July, 88. From the facts the case is that she was given beating in Mar., 86 while she had left her husband's house in Jan., 86, for which a divorce-petition is pending filed by the husband, while she filed a complaint on 11th July, 88. According to the learned counsel for the non-petitioner, the complaint was filed not on 11th July, 88, but on 25th May, 88. The complaint was sent to SHO for investigation u/s. 15 (3), Cr.P.C., on the next day. Registration of the complaint and investigation took time, because, there was dispute about the jurisdiction of the police stations. Ultimately, Jawahar Nagar Police Station investigated the case. Then on petitioner complainant filed a protest-petition on 24th Jan., 89, against the submission of the final report by the police. After hearing the parties on the protest-petition, the learned Magistrate took cognizance in the case on 28th Apr., 89. Thus, under these circumstances, the complaint was pending from May, 88 and the Magistrate took cognizance after about a year. The ground for this delay was pending investigation between the two police stations. So, if it is taken for granted that the incident was of Mar., 86, the cognizance was taken on 28th Apr., 89, i.e. after 3 years; and the argument was that it was barred by limitation, as prescribed in S. 468 (2)(c), Cr.P.C. If it is taken that it is barred by limitation, then too, the Court has power to dispense with the delay., and this is a case where the Court should not mind the delay in filing the complaint or taking congnizance. 7. Under these circumstances, the petition u/s. 482, Cr.P.C. is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******