Judgment N. K. Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners are accused in case No.1 (0) 88/ Trial No.302 of 1991 under Sec.188 of the Indian Penal code (for short IPC) and their application for being discharged in the case, had been rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class by his order dated 9-4-1991. 3. On the allegations made, it appear that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code)was drawn in respect of 8 decimals of land of plot No.1002 by the Sub Divisional magistrate at the instance of one co-villager Ram Chandra Prasad (O. P. No.2) against the petitioners. It was further alleged that the petitioners came over the disputed plot on 18-3-1986 at 8 a. m. and took away bundles of Dhania crops worth Rs.50/-despite the protest by the said Ram chandra Prasad on whose prayer, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate filed a complaint for the prosecution of the petitioners under Sec.188 of the code and the learned Judicial magistrate refused to discharge the petitioners in the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, while stating the facts of the case, pressed his application not with regard to the legality of the order passed by the learned Judicial magistrate rejecting the application for discharge but on the ground that in any view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioners for, the offences under section 188 I. P. C. , was an abuse of the process of the court for the simple reason that the courts order dated 30-5-1988 passed by the learned Judicial magistrate, the certified copy of which was produced at the time of hearing, was without jurisdiction as no cognizance for such an offence could have been taken more than one year after the date of the occurrence. There is no dispute that the date of occurrence in respect of which the petitioners were sought to be prosecuted, was 18-3-1986, and under Sec.468 of the Code, there is a prohibition from taking cognizance for such an offence after the period of one year. Sec.468 (1) (b)provides that cognizance for the offence cannot be taken beyond the period of limitation of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Sec.468 (1) (b)provides that cognizance for the offence cannot be taken beyond the period of limitation of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. The maximum punishment prescribed under Sec.188 IPC is imprisonment for six month, or fine not exceeding Rs.1000.00 or both, and hence the provisions of Sec.468 (1) (b) of the Code are clearly attracted in the present case. The cognizance was taken on 30-5-1988, that is, after two years of the alleged occurrence and hence, the order taking cognizance was barred under Sec.468 (1) (b) of the code. The criminal prosecution of the petitioners on the basis of such illegal order of cognizance, is an abuse of the process of the court and its quashing as also the criminal prosecution of the petitioners based thereon, is called for to secure the ends of justice. I order accordingly. This application is accordingly allowed. Application allowed