JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 22-6-1984, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, overruling the objection of the applicant-accused that the complaint for commission of alleged offence under Section 498 of the I.P.C. filed against him was liable to rejection, being barred by time under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 2. The facts in brief are that complainant-non-applicant Shyamlal, who is the husband of Savitribai filed a complaint against the applicant-accused Lakheram, who is father of Savitribai, alleging that on the pretext of taking her for a festival he carried her in the year 1977 to his village with an intent to get her re-married. A copy of the complaint and a copy of the application objecting registration of the complaint have been supplied to the Court by the counsel for the applicant. Perusal of the copy of the complaint would should that in paragraph 3, the date of taking away of her daughter Savitribai by the applicant is stated to be in the year 1977, but, in paragraph 5, no year or date has been mentioned when the non-applicant husband went to the village of the father, who refused to send back the daughter to the non-applicant's house, stating that the non-applicant was poor and the applicant, therefore, wanted to get her re-married. 3. The applicant filed an application on 23-9-1983, praying that the complaint did not prima facie disclose commission of offence under Section 498 of the I.P.C. and that the complaint was prima facie barred by time under Section 468 of the Code. The trial Court by order dated 22-6-1984 held that the facts stated in the complaint constitute an act of continuing offence of illegally detaining Savitribai with an intention to get her re-married. The trial Court, therefore, held that the complaint in respect of continuing offence could not be rejected as barred by time. The trial Court also held that the statement of complainant and his witness Dhansai, prima facie show commission of an offence under Section 498 of the I.P.C. and the complaint could not be rejected on the ground that it did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant-accused firstly submitted that the complaint was prima facie barred under the provisions of Section 468 of the Code. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant-accused firstly submitted that the complaint was prima facie barred under the provisions of Section 468 of the Code. On the basis of the facts stated in the complaint, he argued that the offence was said to have been committed in the year 1977 when the accused-father was alleged to have taken Savitribai to his village on the pretext of festival with an intention to get her re-married. The complaint was filed on 12-11-1982 which was obviously beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code. According to the learned counsel for the accused, under Section 469 of the Code, the period of limitation shall commence from the date of the commission of the offence which in the present case was on a date in the year 1977. According to him it was incorrect on the part of the trial Court to have held that the facts alleged constituted commission of continuing offence. The learned counsel also referred to the provisions of Section 498 of the I.P.C. to point out that ingredient of the offence is enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman so that she may have illicit intercourse with any 'other person'. The learned counsel on the basis of the ingredients of the offence under Section 498 of the I P.C. submitted that the complaint does not disclose any act of detention or concealing Savitribai with the intent that she may have illicit intercourse with another person. Elaborating his argument, it was stated that the intention of the father to get her re-married cannot be said to be with an intention to force her for illicit intercourse with another person. It is nowhere stated in the complaint that the intention of the accused was to take her through the ceremony of illegal marriage without any customary or court divorce. The only act complained was of taking the woman by the accused in the year 1977. It is also not disclosed to the complaint as to who was the person with whom the accused wanted Savitribai to remarry. It was, therefore, submitted that the main ingredient of the offence is absent and the complaint should have been rejected out right. 5. It is also not disclosed to the complaint as to who was the person with whom the accused wanted Savitribai to remarry. It was, therefore, submitted that the main ingredient of the offence is absent and the complaint should have been rejected out right. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant supported the order of the trial Court, both on the ground of limitation as also on the ground that the contents of the complaint and the evidence recorded in support of the complaint prima facie disclose commission of offence under Section 498 of the I.P.C. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the copy of the complaint and the copy of the application supplied to the Court, I have formed an opinion that the revision is liable to be allowed on the ground that the complaint does not prima facie disclose commission of any offence under Section 498 of the Code. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, in my opinion, the trial Court was right in holding that the complaint could not be rejected as barred by time under Section 468 of the Code. The gist of the offence under Section 498 is not only taking or enticing the wife of another person, but also includes concealing or detaining her. In the present case, it is true that Savitribai was alleged to have been enticed or taken away by the accused in the year 1977, but she was kept in detention up to the date of filing of the complaint. In this case, the act of detaining a wife of another person with intent to get her remarried is a continuing offence. It could not, therefore, be said that the complaint was barred. Under Section 472 of the Code, in case of continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the offence continues. 7. The revision, however, deserves to succeed on the other ground urged by the learned counsel for the accused. The learned counsel is right in contending that the facts stated in the complaint did not prima facie show the intention on the part of the accused, as father, to detain Savitribai so that she may have illicit intercourse with another person. Such intention is main ingredient of the offence. The learned counsel is right in contending that the facts stated in the complaint did not prima facie show the intention on the part of the accused, as father, to detain Savitribai so that she may have illicit intercourse with another person. Such intention is main ingredient of the offence. Even after reading whole of the complaint, I do not find any allegation that the accused intended that Savitri may have illicit intercourse with another person. In paragraph 5, what has been stated is that the accused enticed Savitribai and refused to send her back to the complainant with an intention get her re-married. In paragraph 5, a bald statement has been made that the wife of the complainant is being illegally detained to deprive the complainant of marital happiness and she is being instigated to lead immoral life (Vyabhichar ke liye prerit kar rahe hain). As has been stated by me and as is clear from the provisions of Section 498 of the I.P.C., intention of enticing, concealing or detaining her so that she may have illicit intercourse with another person is the main ingredient of the offence which is completely lacking in the body of the complaint. The complaint, therefore, does not even prima facie disclose any case of commission of an offence under Section 498 of the I.P.C. The trial Court was, therefore, in error in refusing to dismiss the complaint. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed The order under revision dated 22-6-1964 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund is hereby set aside and the complaint filed by the non-applicant is dismissed.