JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, by this miscellaneous petition, has challenged the order dated 1.7.92, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. against the petitioners. 2. The order has been challenged on various grounds including the ground that the learned Magistrate, while framing the charges, has not applied its judicious mind and the facts, disclosed in the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, are not sufficient to frame the charges against the petitioners under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. as the facts do not constitute these offences or any other offence. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cognizance of the offences, taken by the learned Magistrate, is clearly barred by time and the learned Magistrate did not consider the case of the petitioners regarding his objections raised and left the matter to be decided at the final stage. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners further is that the marriage took place on 1.3.79 and the complainant left the house of her own accord on 21.7.81. She moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance on 29.4.83, and the reply to this application was filed by the petitioner on 5.1.84. The statements were recorded on 23.2.84, and the application was allowed on 18.3.74(84), and the maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month was granted by the learned Magistrate, which was reduced to Rs. 350/- per month in the revision. The ex-parte decree of judicial separation on the ground of desertion was granted in favour of the petitioner on 7.7.84, while the present F.I.R. was lodged on 6.2.90, which was registered on 19.2.90, which was registered on 19.2.90, which is clearly barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. At the time of framing the charges, one has to simply see the broad aspect of the case and the close and critical scruitiny of the evidence is not required to be made at this stage. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. At the time of framing the charges, one has to simply see the broad aspect of the case and the close and critical scruitiny of the evidence is not required to be made at this stage. The Court is only required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find-out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence. Even strong suspicion at this stage is sufficient to frame the charges against the accused. From the materials available on record, I am of the opinion that prima facie the materials for framing the charges exist in the present case and the rest is the matter of trial. It is not expected that this Court, while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should proceed to discuss all such evidence available on record to see whether the evidence constitutes the offence because if that will be done then it may prejudice the case of the petitioner himself and that will amount to discharging the functions of the trial Court itself. By evaluating the evidence on record, I am simply to satisfy myself whether prima facie there is some material existing on record which justify the framing of the charges against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner under the aforesaid Sections. 5. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner before the learned trial Court that no cognizance can be taken against the petitioner as the time for taking the cognizance, as per the provisions of Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. has already expired, but the learned Magistrate, instead of deciding the question of limitation, deferred the matter to be decided along with the case itself at the time of final disposal of the case. The learned Magistrate should have decided the question of limitation first instead of deferring it because if the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance then the complaint should have been dismissed at the initial stage and the petitioner could have been saved from the harrassment which he has faced during the pendency of the trial. The learned Magistrate should have decided the question of limitation first instead of deferring it because if the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance then the complaint should have been dismissed at the initial stage and the petitioner could have been saved from the harrassment which he has faced during the pendency of the trial. It is, therefore, desirable in the interest of justice that the learned Magistrate, instead of deferring the decision of the question of limitation at the time of trial, should decide the question as a preliminary question before proceeding with the trial. If the Magistrate is not competent to take the cognizance in views of the provisions of Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. then it will be a futile exercise to examine the witnesses. I, therefore, think it proper to direct the learned Magistrate first to decide the question of limitation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. With these observations, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioners, is disposed of. *******