JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners seek to quash the order dated 4.7.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dungargarh summoning the accused petitioners for trial for offence u/ss. 504 & 379 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 1.2.1997, Mana Ram lodged an oral First Information Report to the effect that on 31.1.1997 he and Govind Nath were not present at the house. His son Jhoomar Ram, son in law Sohan Ram, Dalu son of Govind Ram and Dhandhla were engaged in the work of stone excavation from Government land known as Thukriyasar-ki-rohi at about 10.00 a.m. At that time, the accused-petitioners Meghla, Bhagirath and Prabhura and the wife of Meghnath arrived there armed with Jaiye and lathies. They abused them in derogatory language referring to their caste. They made an attempt to assault Jhoomar and Sohanji and other women folk. Jhoomar, Dalu and Sohanji escaped from the place of incident. In their absence, the accused persons took away the stones and the instruments for excavation and breaking of stones. On this information, police registered a case for offence u/ss. 147, 148, 149 & 379 IPC. After the investigation, police forwarded a negative report to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dungargarh. The complainant objected to the acceptance of Final Report by way of protest' petition. The statements of Dal Nath and Govind Nath were recorded. The learned Magistrate by the order dated 4.7.2002 took cognizance against the accused persons for offence u/ss. 504 & 379 IPC. 3. It is contended by Mr. M.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that proceedings against the petitioners being barred by the provisions of Section 467 Cr.P.C., the prosecution was under obligation to file the charge-sheet within limitation provided u/s. 468 Cr.P.C. 4. Two years sentence is provided for the offence u/s. 504 IPC. Similarly, three years sentence is provided for the offence u/s. 379 IPC. Sub-clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 468 provides a limitation of three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. In the instant case the incident is of 31.1.1997. Thus, the period of limitation of three years expired on 30.1.2000. Neither the prosecution nor the complainant filed any application u/s. 473 Cr.P.C. for extension of period of limitation. In the instant case the incident is of 31.1.1997. Thus, the period of limitation of three years expired on 30.1.2000. Neither the prosecution nor the complainant filed any application u/s. 473 Cr.P.C. for extension of period of limitation. The order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners for offence u/ss. 504 & 379 IPC being after the lapse of period of limitation, is ex-facie illegal. The continuance of instant proceedings is an abuse of the process of Court. 5. Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 4.7.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dungargarh taking cognizance against the petitioners is quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******