JUDGMENT 1. - By his order dated 5.7.1996, learned Addl. Chief Juddl. Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur took cognizance for offence under section 498-A IPC against the petitioners. By his order dated 12.9.1996 he ordered that the charge under section 498-A IPC be framed and read over to the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged both the orders under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No, 2. 3. The facts, in brief, are that Smt. Neeru Joshi resident of Udaipur was married to Nand Kishore on 14.12.1985. According to the petition filed under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce, the husband and wife lived together at Udaipur upto 28.1.1986. It was alleged in the divorce petition that the husband had deserted the wife w.e.f. 29.1.1986 and she was residing at Udaipur. It was averred in the divorce petition that Nand Kishore had contacted a second marriage with Smt. Pappi D/o Ratanlal R/o Phalodi on 7.5.1987 and a son was born in May, 1988. She prayed that a decree for divorce may be granted. The petition was dismissed by the learned Judge of Family Court, Udaipur on 17.9.1991. She was sitting silent for pretty many years and on 1.9 1995 she sent a letter to Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur that on 25.3.1986 she was turned out of her husband's house by abusing her and her relations on the ground that she had not brought anything as dowry. She was the youngest daughter of her parents and they were disturbed after seeing her. Her parents are very old. She and her parents went to her husband Nand Kishore and requested him to keep the wife but he refused to keep her without dowry. She contacted the Head Mistress Smt. Kamla Jain of the school where her husband was serving but the husband Nand Kishore replied that if the conditions put by his parents are accepted then only he would keep. She waited for 11/2years but on 7.5.1987 Nand Kishore married Pappi. The SHO Police Station Mahamandir registered a case under section 498-A IPC vide FIR No. 231/95. After investigation challan was presented before the learned Magistrate for offence under sections 498-A and 494 IPC. She waited for 11/2years but on 7.5.1987 Nand Kishore married Pappi. The SHO Police Station Mahamandir registered a case under section 498-A IPC vide FIR No. 231/95. After investigation challan was presented before the learned Magistrate for offence under sections 498-A and 494 IPC. Learned Magistrate by his order dated 5.7.1996 discharged Nand Kishore from the offence of Section 494 WC but took cognizance u /s. 498-A IPC against all the petitioners. As already stated, he has also ordered that the charge be framed for the offence against all of them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order taking cognizance is time barred and without jurisdiction as Smt. Neeru Joshi did not plead in divorce petition that she had come to Jodhpur instead she had pleaded that both, husband and wife, lived at Udaipur till 28.1.1996 and that the husband had left her at udaipur on 29.1.1986. So there was no evidence of cruelty at Jodhpur. He further submitted that there was no application to extend the period of limitation. He also submitted that the husband and wife were living separately since 29.1.1986, therefore, the question of cruelty did not arise. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Smt. Neeru submitted that she wanted to maintain the relationship with the husband therefore, she was keeping silent and citing Smt. Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy & Ors., 1993 (2) Crimes 275, submitted that the Courts while considering the question of limitation for an offence under section 498-A IPC i.e. subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or the relative of her husband should judge that question in the light of Section 473 of Cr.P.C. He has submitted that the offence is more or less like a continuing offence and it is only its last resort that the wife has openly come before a Court to unfold and relate the day to day story of torture, therefore, the question of limitation does not arise. He has, therefore, prayed that the order of learned Magistrate is not time barred as the wife wanted to maintain the relationship, she waited and waited but.when she came to know that the husband had married second time she again waited for some time and ultimately went to police. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. First on facts. He has, therefore, prayed that the order of learned Magistrate is not time barred as the wife wanted to maintain the relationship, she waited and waited but.when she came to know that the husband had married second time she again waited for some time and ultimately went to police. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. First on facts. In her divorce petition Smt. Neeru Joshi did not mention as to where the marriage had taken place. However, it has come on record that the marriage took place at Jodhpur. She mentioned in the petition that she and her husband last resided together at Udaipur upto 28.1.1986. It was alleged in the petition that she was deserted since 29.1.1986 without any rhyme or reason. No allegation of cruelty as defined under section 498-A IPC was made in the divorce petition. The husband did not appear to contest the divorce petition. It was dismissed on 17.9.1991. She did not take any action and was waiting till 1995 when she submitted a written report by post to the Superintendent of Police of Jodhpur on 1.9.1995 which was received in his office on 7.9.1995 and ultimately case was registered on 13.12.1995. This report mentions that the marriage was performed at Jodhpur on 14.12.1985 and the wife was turned out from her husband's house on 25.3.1986 after insulting her and her relations. So wife Smt. Neeru first mentioned in the divorce petition as 28.1.1986 as the last date when the husband and wife lived together and then husband had deserted her since 29.1.1986 at Udaipur. It appears that she mentioned the dates according to her convenience and now it is being said that she being a lady could not have unfolded the story of cruelty as she wanted to maintain the relationship with the husband. If she wanted to maintain, she could not have initiated the proceeding's u is. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Judge of Family Court, Udaipur in which apart from the allegation of desertion she alleged that the husband had married another lady Pappi on 7.5.1987 without any proof with her. It appears from the record, that she is an educated lady and is working in the Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar as LDC at Udaipur. It appears from the record, that she is an educated lady and is working in the Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar as LDC at Udaipur. So from this conflicting evidence even if it is presumed that the husband and wife lived together till 25.3.1986, cruelty as defined u /s. 498-A IPC could have been done on or before this date. But no such allegation was made in the divorce petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of an offence which was barred by time. He cited the following rulings and submitted that Section 468 IPC was applicable to the present case:- (1) Ram Dayal Goyal v. State of Raj. & Anr., 1991 RCC 535, wherein cog-nizance was taken for an offence under section 406 IPC after three years as the offence was committed on 20.8.1975 and cognizance was taken by the Court on 26.6.1986 or deemed to have been taken on 24.9.1983. It was held that it was time barred. (2) Panney Singh & Ors. v. State of Raj., 1979 WLN 377 , in which it was held that the order taking cognizance on charge-sheet presented beyond period of liniitation was bad in law. (3) Harpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors., 1992 (2) WLC 206 , in which alleged cruelty was committed on 21.6.1987 and order of cognizance was passed on 16.3.1991 beyond the period of three years which was held to be barred by limitation and the proceedings of pending prosecution were quashed. 8. From the record it appears that the cognizance has been taken for a time barred offence. Learned Magistrate has mentioned in his order that the dates of turning out of Smt. Neeru Joshi and of cruelty were mentioned in the charge-sheet and the challan was presented on 1.2.1996. According to him he was satisfied that the reasons shown for the delay were satisfactory and, therefore, the challan was held to have been filed within limitation. I do not agree with his view because had Smt. Neeru Joshi a cogent reason to come late after so many years on the ground that she wanted to maintain the relationship, she could not have gone to the Family Court for her divorce had she been serious about it. I do not agree with his view because had Smt. Neeru Joshi a cogent reason to come late after so many years on the ground that she wanted to maintain the relationship, she could not have gone to the Family Court for her divorce had she been serious about it. Even in the citation relied upon by the learned counsel for Smt. Neeru i.e. Smt. Vanka Radhanianohari (supra) it has been observed that the offence under section 498-A IPC is more or less a continuing offence and it is only as a last resort that a wife openly comes before a Court to unfold and relate day to day torture by her inside the house which many of such victims do not like to be made public. In the case in hand, Smt. Neeru lived with the husband for a very short period as per her own statement in the divorce petition at Udaipur till 28.1.1986. The marriage was performed at Jodhpur on 14.12.1985. So when she did not live with the husband after 28.1.1986 and did not allege anything about cruelty in her divorce petition, the story of cruelty is an after thought. Even if it is presumed that she lived with her husband upto 25.3.1986 at Jodhpur, there was no evidence of any cruelty meted to her at the hand of her husband or his relations in the FIR itself. It mentions only that she was married to N.K. Bissa on 14.12.1985 and was turned out on 25.3.1986 by insulting her and her family members. When she went back to Udaipur, her parents were disturbed. She has mentioned in the FIR that she contacted the Head Mistress Smt. Kamla Jain who was the boss of the petitioner but from the evidence I find that Smt. Kamla Jain has not supported her because according to Smt. Kamla Jain she had received a letter from Neeru in which she had inquired about the second marriage of Nand Kishore. This information was sent to the district Education Officer on 22.5.1995. This information was sent to the district Education Officer on 22.5.1995. It may be mentioned that in the divorce petition itself Smt. Neeru had alleged that accused petitioner Nand Kishore had contacted second marriage on 7.5.1987 with Pappi who had given birth to a baby boy in May, 1988 and to she was enquiring about it from Smt. Kamla Jain some time in 1995 while the Family Court had already decided by order dated 17.9.1991 that she was unable to prove the second marriage. So it can safely be said that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of a time barred offence under the mistaken belief that Smt. Neeru had explained the delay which he was condoning. The Supreme Court citation in case of Snit. Vanka Radhamanohari (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case. 9. From the above discussion I come to the conclusion that the order taking cognizance was time barred and without evidence. It is a fit case in which inherent powers given to the Court are to be exercised in favour of the petitioners in order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court.The petition is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 5.7.1996 taking cognizance and the order dated 12.9.1996 by which the learned Magistrate ordered to frame charge against the petitioners, are quashed.Petition allowed. *******