JUDGMENT 1. - The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is filed by the accused petitioners, against the order dated 30.11.2000, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kota, in Criminal Case No. 141/99, whereby, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the accused petitioners, under Section 468, Cr.P.C., to drop the proceedings, pending against the petitioners, for offences under Section 498-A and 406, IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioners, Shri R.S. Rathore. 3. He brought to my notice, the relevant facts that in the present case, Nirmala, the non-petitioner No. 2, filed a complaint on 17.6.95, before the Magistrate under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC, upon which, the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 156 (3). Cr.PC., with a direction to Police Station, Dadabari, Kota, to register an FIR and investigate the matter. In pursuant to the aforesaid order, passed by the learned Magistrate, under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C., an FIR was lodged at Police Station, Dadabari, Kota, on 27.6.95. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted final report on 10.11.95, with which, the learned Magistrate was not satisfied and he directed re-investigation. In pursuant thereof, a challan was submitted against the accused petitioners, under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC, on 12.3.99. After receiving the challan papers from the police station, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 20.3.99, summoning the accused petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 4. Aggrieved against the summoning order, passed by the learned Magistrate, dated 20.3.99, the accused petitioners filed an application under Section 468, Cr.P.C., to drop the proceedings against them, as the offences alleged against them under Section 498-A and 406, IPC, is barred under Section 468(1) (c) of Cr.P.C., which provides that except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no court shall taken cognizance of an offence of the category, specified in sub-section (2) after expiry of period of limitation. 5. It is urged by the learned counsel, for the accused petitioners, Shri R.S. Rathore that the present complaint, filed by the non-petitioner No. 2, on 17.6.95, upon which, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 20.3.99, is barred by limitation. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on a decision, rendered by Patna High Court, in case of Dr. Moizuddin v. State of Bihar, reported in 1991 (3) Crimes 769 . In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on a decision, rendered by Patna High Court, in case of Dr. Moizuddin v. State of Bihar, reported in 1991 (3) Crimes 769 . He also placed reliance on a decision, rendered by Supreme Court, in case of Arun Vyas and another v. Anita Vyas, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 690 and vehemently urged before me that in view of the proposition of law, laid down in case of Arun Vyas and another (supra), the present proceedings against the accused petitioners, deserve to be quashed under Section 482, Cr.PC., as according to Shri Rathore, the present proceedings tantamount to abuse of the process of the court. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid argument, raised by Shri Rathore. 7. The argument, raised by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners, is attractive, but fallacious. 8. It is to be imbibed that bar of limitation for taking cognizance of offence under Section 468, Cr.P.C., is not absolute. It is to be given effect in the light of Sections 473 and 482, Cr.P.C., depending on facts of each case. 9. It is well to remember that matrimonial offences, relating to cruelty of husband, on wife, are in the nature of continuing offences, to which bar of Section 468, Cr.PC., cannot be applied in the interest of justice, for which, court of law exists. 10. I am fortified in taking the aforesaid view, from the decision, rendered by Supreme Court, in case of Vanka Radhamanohari (Smt.) v. Vanka Venkata Reddy and others, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 4 , wherein, the decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, taking view that cognizance of offence under Section 498-A, IPC, is barred under Section 468, Cr.P.C., was set aside by the Apex Court and the appeal was allowed. 11. For the reasons, discussed hereinabove, I am at one with the order impugned dated 30.11.2000, passed by the learned Magistrate, and no case is made out to interfere under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 12. Consequently, the instant miscellaneous petition, filed under Section, Cr.PC., lacks merit, it is hereby dismissed.Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed. *******