JUDGMENT This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by applicants Pooransingh and Suresh Singh. It has been prayed that the proceedings in Case No. 76 of 1986 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Gohad be quashed. The allegations in brief are that a complaint was filed by the non-applicant Sabobai against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gohad, which was registered as Cr. Case No. 76/86. It was alleged that the marriage of petitioner No. 1 Sabobai took place with Pooransingh in Samvat year 2023 and at the time of marriage some gold, and silver ornaments and cash Rs. 2,500/- were given. There was always a complaint that less dowry was given. In the year 1972, she was taken by the petitioner No. 1 to her parents house and since then she was living there. On demand for money and ornaments on 20.12.84, the complainant was refused by the petitioners. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused for offence under section 405 and 406 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that according to the case taken up by the complainant herself has stated that her articles were kept as early as in the year 1972, when she was sent to her parents house. The complaint was filed in the year 1985. Learned counsel referred to section 488 Cr.P.C. and urged that under section 468 Cr.P.C. limitation of three years is provided for taking cognizance of offences, in which punishment provided is three years. Here, for offences under section 405 and 406, punishment provided is 3 years. Thus, he urged cognizance could not be taken after the expiry of three years. Learned Magistrate committed illegality in taking cognizance and urged that the proceedings be quashed. He also urged that a copy of the order passed by First Addl. Munsif, Agra in Case No. 86/88 has also been filed, which shows that a declaration was granted that there was no marriage between the parties. Learned counsel for the non-applicant contended that the delay in filing the complaint was due to the fact that initially talks were going on and when no agreement took place, the complaint was filed. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Learned counsel for the non-applicant contended that the delay in filing the complaint was due to the fact that initially talks were going on and when no agreement took place, the complaint was filed. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The complaint shows that the petitioner had alleged in para 1 of the complaint that her marriage took place in Samvt year 2023. In para 2 it was alleged that at the time of marriage ornaments detailed therein and cash amount of S. 2,500/- was given. On the day of Guru Poornima of year 1972 both the accused persons beat her and asked her to go to her parents house. Thereafter in the month of Sawan her husband Pooran took her to her parent's house at village Nenoli and since then she was living there. Thus, it is apparent from the allegations in the complaint itself that the cash and property alleged to have been detained by the petitioners, was detained in the year 1972. The complaint has been filed in the year 1985. In view of section 468 Cr.P.C. cognizance can he taken within a period of 3 years from the date of commission of offence. Thus, in the present case, learned magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance. The petition must, therefore, succeed. The petition is accordingly allowed. The proceedings in Criminal case No. 76/86 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gohad are quashed.