JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner Durgalal was married to Durga Devi a number of years ago. The allegation of the complainant, who is the brother of Durga Devi is that Durga Devi was not treated properly on account of bringing less dowry. Durga Devi came to her parents' house and later on a Panchayat was arranged on 2.11.84 and the petitioner took Durga Devi to his house. Prior to this, Durgalal had contracted a 'nata marriage' with one Sarswati Devi. 2. Durga Devi had two daughters. Some time before 7th May, 1985, she left the house of her husband Durgalal and has not been traced or recovered so far. Her brother Kailash Chand was to get married on 7th May, 1985 and she did not join the function on that occasion. Kailash had gone to fetch her but at that time he was told that she had gone to attend some other marriage. As Durga Devi was not traceable and her husband was making allegations that she has been taken away by her brother the complainant, Kailash Chand lodged a report. 3. On the other hand, the investigation reveal that Durga Devi had on one day beaten her daughter Vimla because she was getting attached to Saraswati Devi. Upon this, Durgalal gave some bows to Durga Devi and told her not to beat the child. Durga Devi went away to the house of some neighbour then Durgalal brought her back. On same day in the evening she went away with a box. Efforts to trace her did not bear any fruit. 4. The first information report of the incident was lodged on 21st July, 1985 and after investigation, a challan was filed on 17th August, 1988. The Magistrate took cognizance for the under Sections 364 and 201 IPC and committed two accused to stand trial before the court of Sessions. The Sessions Court, namely the Additional Sessions Judge No. 6. Jaipur City. Jaipur considered the facts and circumstances of the case and was of the opinion that the under Sections 364 and 201 IPC was not made out but from the evidence collected in the case, it would be said that the petitioner has been ill-treating his wife and there was sufficient ground for charging the accused for the under Section 498-A IPC. He therefore. He therefore. discharged the petitioner from the under Sections 364 and 201 IPC and sent the case file to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur for trying the accused for the under Section 498-A IPC. 5. The petitioner moved an application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur that cognizance for the under Section 498-A IPC had been taken beyond the period of limitation and as such. Section 468 Cr. P. C. was a bar to taking cognizance and trying the accused. This application has been disallowed by order dated 3rd August. 1989 mainly on the ground that the trial before the Magistrate is proceeding on the basis of a direction of a superior court. Against this order, the petitioner has come up under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the occurrence in this case took place prior to 7th May, 1985 and even the charge sheet was presented after three years and for an under Section 498-A IPC cognizance cannot be taken after three years under Section 468 (2) (c) Cr. P. C. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on Prabbakaran v. State of Kerala (1986 Cr. L. J. 1411) and Dr. Dalpat Singh v. State (1989 R.C.C. 467) . In the Rajasthan case it has been held that where cognizance for s under Section 218 and 465 IPC is taken after expiry of the period of limitation and the delay has neither been condoned nor explained the delay cannot be condoned after taking of cognizance. It was held that in case the delay is condoned, the accused is entitled to an opportunity of hearing. In case of Prabhakaran (supra) the case was jointly tried for the under Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act, he was acquitted under Section 39 but convicted under Section 44. The limitation for taking cognizance under Section 44 was barred under Section 468 Cr. P. C. so the accused was acquitted for this also. 7. Section 468 (3) Cr. P. C. provides that where offences are more than one and can be tried together the period of limitation shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the most severe punishment. P. C. so the accused was acquitted for this also. 7. Section 468 (3) Cr. P. C. provides that where offences are more than one and can be tried together the period of limitation shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the most severe punishment. On this ground it could be said that when cognizance for the under Section 364 IPC and 201 IPC was taken then the period of limitation had not expired but when the petitioner has been discharged for these offences and cognizance has been taken for the under Section 498 A IPC only then the period, within which cognizance could be taken for the offence under Sections 364 or 201 IPC would not be available to the court. There is only one for which the petitioner is to be tried now and on basis of the punishment for this the period of limitation for taking cognizance is to be decided and by applying the criteria prescribed in Section 468 Cr. P. C. cognizance for the under Section 498-A IPC cannot be taken beyond a period of three years. 8. Durga Devi has not been traced so far. On the basis of this circumstance, I have considered the question whether this is a case wherein the period of limitation should be extended under Section 468 (3) Cr. P. C. However, after going through the evidence which has been collected during the investigation, it appear, that Durga Devi left the house on account of a quarrel which was as a result of giving beating to her daughter. It cannot be said that the dispute between the husband and wife was on account of some demand of dowry. Moreover, it can be said that the evidence only goes to show that there was a single instance in which the husband gave beating to his wife and in these circumstances, it is not considered proper to extend the period of limitation for taking cognizance. 9. In the result, the contention of the petitioner that cognizance has been taken beyond the period of limitation is accepted. The order dated 1st March, 1989 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur is set aside and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed as being beyond limitation. The record of the case be returned immediately.Petition dismissed. *******