JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. M.G.K. Menon, petitioner in S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No. 230/95, had given a declaration in Form No. 6 appended to the Electors Rules, 1960, that he was ordinarily residing at House No. 245, Gandhi Nagar, Sikar. Jagpal Singh, petitioner in S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No. 196/95 had counter-signed the above statement of Mr. M.G.K. Menon in the said Form No. 6. It appears that name of M.G.K. Menon was duly listed in the Electoral Roll, published under Rule 22 of the Rules. Subsequently, on inquiry it was found that Mr. M.G.K. Menon was not ordinarily residing at the address mentioned by him in Form No. 6. Respondent No. 2 Shri Dhandendra Bhan Chaturvedi, Sub-Divisional magistrate, Sikar, in his capacity of Electoral kef is oration Officer, issued notice to M.G.K. Menon and Jagpal Singh-petitioners to show cause as to why they should not he prosecuted for committing the offence punishable under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The petitioners appear to have .submitted their objection on 25.1.94 against proposed prosecution. But overruling the objections raised before him respondent No. 2 filed a complaint on 24.2.94 against M.G.K. Menon and Jagpal Singh-petitioners, and the learned Magistrate, vide his impugned order dated 27.1.95 took cognizance of the offence under Section 31 of the Act, 1950 and summoned the. petitioners as accused in the case. The present petitioner appears to have challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before this Court by preferring Cr1. Misc. Petition No. 874/94. However, on 29.9.94 this Court dismissed his said petition and directed him to raise his objection before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner thereupon raised his objection before learned Magistrate who vide his impugned order dismissed his such objection. 2. Misc. Petition No. 874/94. However, on 29.9.94 this Court dismissed his said petition and directed him to raise his objection before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner thereupon raised his objection before learned Magistrate who vide his impugned order dismissed his such objection. 2. It is now contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though no offence under Section 31 of 1950 may be said to have been committed in the present case inasmuch as the name of M.G.K. Menon-petitioner, had been entered into Electoral Roll for Sikar Assembly Constituency after due inquiries, contemplated to be made by the Registration Officer before inclusion of his name in the said rolls yet even if it be assumed forsake of arguments that petitioner and M.G.K. Menon had committed such offence, the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of such offence in view of the bar created by Section 468(2)(b), Cr.P.C. It was pointed out that the offence under Section 31 of Act of 1950 was punishable with 1 year imprisonment or fine or both and therefore, the said offence was alleged to have been committed on 1.3.90, the learned Magistrate should have taken cognizance of the said offence latest by 28.2.1991. But in the present case, the learned Magistrate took cognizance as late a son 27.1.1995. 3. The offence under Section 31 of Act of 1950 is punishable with one year or fine or both. The learned Magistrate should have taken cognizance of such offence within one year from the commission of the said offence as per provision contained in Section 468(2)(b), Cr.P.C. The offence was alleged to have been committed on 1.3.90 and, therefore, taking cognizance of the said offence by the learned Magistrate as late as on 27.1.95 was miserably time-barred. That apart, in view of the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed in the present case, directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, 1996 (4) SCC 33 , is also applicable to the present case. No proceedings pursuant to or consequent upon the impugned order dated 27.1.95, save those of appearance of the petitioner before Trial Court, appear to have been taken so far. Under such circumstances the continuance of the criminal proceedings in the present case amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 4. No proceedings pursuant to or consequent upon the impugned order dated 27.1.95, save those of appearance of the petitioner before Trial Court, appear to have been taken so far. Under such circumstances the continuance of the criminal proceedings in the present case amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 4. In view of the above, impugned order dated 27.1.1995 is hereby set aside and proceedings directed to be quashed and dropped. 5. This order shall be available to M.G.K. Menon's S.B. CO. Misc. Petition No. 230/95 as the said petition has not put in appearance today before this Court.Petition allowed. *******