Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Dr. K.D. Sharma petitioner for quashing the complaint dated December 10, 1997 which has been appended as Annexure P/1 with the petition and the summoning order dated August 1, 1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind which has been appended as Annexure P/2 with the present petition. 2. Shri Baldev Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that in fact the summoning order Annexure P/2 was totally contrary to the law inasmuch as the petitioner has been summoned for the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code which stood repealed in the year 1988 vide Act No. 49 of the P.C. Act, 1988. He further submits that so far as the offence punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same was merely punishable for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 3. In this view of the matter, Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the bar of limitation created under Section 468(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was attracted and, therefore, the complaint was barred by limitation and as such no cognizance could be taken. He further submits that in any case before passing the summoning order Annexure P/2, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was bound in law to have considered as to whether the complaint filed was within limitation or not and the repeal of section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. I find that there is force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. From the perusal of annexure P/2 I do not find either the question of limitation or repeal of section 161 of the Indian Penal Code was ever taken into consideration by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. In fact before taking cognizance and passing the summoning order Annexure P/2, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was bound in law to have considered as to whether the complaint filed was within limitation or not. 5. In this view of the matter, the summoning order Annexure P/2 dated August 1, 1998 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial magistrate to reconsider the matter in the complaint and pass appropriate orders. 5. In this view of the matter, the summoning order Annexure P/2 dated August 1, 1998 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial magistrate to reconsider the matter in the complaint and pass appropriate orders. Of course, since now the petitioner stands summoned and has approached this court, therefore, a further liberty is granted to the petitioner to assist the trial court and oppose the complaint at the stage of the summoning order if so advised. He can appear and assist the court through counsel. Since the matter remained pending for sufficient long time, the trial court is directed to pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.