JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Petition Under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order of Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana in Cr. Complaint No. 267/78 whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners along with other co-accused persons Under Sections 148, 323, 427 & 341/149 Indian Penal Code. 2. The complaint against the petitioners was lodged by Shri Purna Ram son of Shri Chenaram Jat resident of Badavara Tehsil-Deedwana District Nagore about the occurrence of 7.10.1978 at 4 p.m. with the facts that he was returning on his tractor to his village Badavara from his field. Ramdev and Aladeen were also sitting in the tractor. As soon as the complainant came out the field, the petitioners and other co-accused persons after forming unlawful assembly came in a jeep armed with pistol, gun and lathis. Petitioners and their associates attacked the complaint Purna Ram, Ramdeen and Aladeen and prevented them from going to their house. The petitioners chased the tractor by jeep. Himmat Singh fired from his pistol but luckily the complainant and Ramdeen were not injured. Ramdev was beaten by lathis. The police did not take any action on the report of Shri Ruparam father of injured Ramdeen. On this complaint, learned Magistrate recorded the statements of witnesses and after considering the statement of the witnesses and the injury report, the impugned order was passed as stated above. 3. The short question for determination has arisen that whether the cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 8.2.1985 is beyond limitation and if so whether order is liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, not necessary to go through the statement of the witnesses and injury report. The incident took place on 7.10.1978, cognizance has been taken on 8.2.1985 after the expiry of more than 6 years and 4 months. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Magistrate could not take cognizance Under Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code after expiry of three years as offence Under Section 148 Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both. Other offences Under Sections 323, 427, 341/149, Indian Penal Code are punishable with various terms of imprisonment but less than three years. Other offences Under Sections 323, 427, 341/149, Indian Penal Code are punishable with various terms of imprisonment but less than three years. There is no specific order for extension of limitation nor any ground has been mentioned as to how it is expedient in the interest of justice to take cognizance even after the expiry period of limitation i.e. three years. Therefore, the cognizance should be set aside and the impugned order may be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 and learned Public Prosecutor have submitted that the time was taken by the court to record the statements of all the witnesses and after completing the inquiry Under Sections 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code the cognizance has been taken and there is no fault of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Bardhman Kala v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 RCC 67 in which it has been held that when extension of limitation period has not been made by the Court and the cognizance has been taken after the expiry of period of limitation then the cognizance is liable to be quashed Under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. as Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code. is a Bar from taking cognizance after the lapse of period of limitation. Reliance has also been placed on Rajkishore & Anr. v. State of Raj, 1994 RCC 148 wherein cognizance was taken after the lapse of limitation without extending this period Under Section 473, Criminal Procedure Code then it was held that the cognizance could not be taken Under Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code and deserves to be quashed. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. I have also gone through the relevant provisions in this regard. The cognizance in the instant case could be taken Under Section 468(l)(c) within three years from the date of the occurrence as the offence Under Section 148 Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. The occurrence took place on 7.10.1978 and limitation period of three years expired on 7.10.1981 whereas the cognizance has been taken on 8.2.1985 which is clearly beyond the prescribed period of limitation.The Court has been authorised to extend the period of limitation if delay is properly explained and it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. The occurrence took place on 7.10.1978 and limitation period of three years expired on 7.10.1981 whereas the cognizance has been taken on 8.2.1985 which is clearly beyond the prescribed period of limitation.The Court has been authorised to extend the period of limitation if delay is properly explained and it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has not extended the period of limitation Under Section 473, Criminal Procedure Code nor there was any application filed for this purpose by the complainant. In view of the above discussion, I am clearly of the view that the cognizance taken against the petitioners is beyond the period of prescribed limitation which could not be taken Under Section 468 (l)(c). On this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed and impugned order dated 8.2.1985 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners Under Sections 148, 323, 427 and 341/149, Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed.Petition Allowed. *******