Judgment 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The order, dated 06.08.2005, passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Complaint Case No. 763 C of 2001 is under challenge whereby cognizance has been taken for offences under Sections 498A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Allegation in the complaint petition is that after solemnization of the marriage of complainants daughter, Nilu Kumari, with Prabhat Kumar on 05.06.2001, the accused persons started demanding rupees one lac as dowry. Since the money was not paid, Prabhat Kumar was taken away by the accused persons, thereafter, the daughter of the complainant was not taken to her matrimonial home. The counsel for the petitioner submits that present prosecution is malafide. In fact, no marriage was solemnized with Prabhat Kumar son of petitioner no. 3 and brother of petitioners 1 and 2 was kidnapped by the complainant and his family members. In this respect Teghra P.S. Case No. 104 of 2001 was instituted for offences under Sections 363, 365 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police recovered kidnapped son of petitioner no. 3 and his statement was recorded under Sec. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons named in Teghra PS. Case No. 104 of 2001 and the trial also proceeded in which four witnesses, in the complaint case, were examined in enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint case was filed on 22.06.2001. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on 28.08.2002, thereafter, the complainant stopped making pairvi in the case. In the year 2005, three witnesses were examined in the enquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the processes was issued by order, dated 06.08.2005. Since the complainant became apprehensive that he and other accused persons may be convicted in Teghra P.S. Case No. 104 of 2001, started taking interest in the complaint case, witnesses were examined and process has been issued. It has been submitted that since the prosecution is malicious, the order taking cognizance be quashed. Another ground which has been taken for quashing of the impugned order is that it is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The maximum punishment for offence under Section 468 (sic)? It has been submitted that since the prosecution is malicious, the order taking cognizance be quashed. Another ground which has been taken for quashing of the impugned order is that it is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The maximum punishment for offence under Section 468 (sic)? of the Dowry Prohibition Act is six months and under Sec. 498A is three years. The date of occurrence is 05.06.2001 and process has been issued on 06.08.2005. The period of limitation for offence for which maximum sentence is three years, limitation prescribed under Sec. 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code is three years. Admittedly, process has been issued beyond period of limitation, that is, much after three years, it is barred by limitation. 4. Counsel appearing for opposite party complainant has controverted both the grounds, taken by the petitioners for quashing of the impugned order. It has been stated that the complaint case was not immediately filed after the occurrence as the complainant was interested in settlement of the dispute as it related to the happiness and life of his daughter. Complaint case was filed when the accused persons did not agree to settle the dispute. After filing of the complaint petition and examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation the witnesses were not produced for being examined under Sec. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Complainant was still hopeful that dispute will be settled and the daughter of the complainant will be taken away by her husband and family members. Finally when the complainant came to know that Prabhat Kumar has solemnized his second marriage, witnesses were examined and process has been issued by the impugned order. The prosecution is not malicious as there was a demand for dowry and on account of its non-fulfilment married daughter of the complainant has been left out. Prima facie case under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out and there is no reason for quashing of the impugned order. 5. While controverting the second point taken by the petitioner, it has been submitted by the counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 that by the impugned order cognizance has not been taken, but, process was issued against the accused for facing the trial. 5. While controverting the second point taken by the petitioner, it has been submitted by the counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 that by the impugned order cognizance has not been taken, but, process was issued against the accused for facing the trial. In a complaint case cognizance is taken on the very first day when the complainant is examined on solemn affirmation. Sec. 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate. Any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2) of Sec. 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code may take cognizance of any offence: (a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitutes such offence. (b) Upon a police report of such facts (c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own in that stage offence has been committed. 6. Once upon receiving a complaint of fact constituting offence, Magistrate examines the complainant on solemn affirmation, he has taken cognizance of the offence. Sec. 192 of the Criminal Procedure Code is clear on this point which provides: (1) Any Chief Judicial Magistrate may after taking cognizance of offence, will make over the case for enquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him. (2) Any Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, may, after taking cognizance of offence, make over the case for enquiry or trial to such other competent Magistrate. 7. Sections 190 and 192 is clear on the point that once cognizance is taken by the Magistrate under Sec. 190 of the Code he may postpone the issuance of process and direct for further enquiry which is subsequently issued under Sec. 204. Issuance of process under Sec. 204 is not order taking cognizance as cognizance has already been taken at the time when after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation case was made over for further enquiry. Under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code only the cognizance is barred. After expiry of the period of limitation summoning or issuance of process is not barred. Reliance has been placed on a Full Bench decision reported in 1980 B.B.C.J., 91 (Jai LokThakur & Ors. Under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code only the cognizance is barred. After expiry of the period of limitation summoning or issuance of process is not barred. Reliance has been placed on a Full Bench decision reported in 1980 B.B.C.J., 91 (Jai LokThakur & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar) wherein it has been held "once cognizance is taken by a Magistrate under Sec. 190 of the Code it is open to him to issue summons to the accused persons or to postpone the issuance of processes and inquire the case himself". It has further been submitted by the counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 since cognizance was taken within the prescribed period of limitation and only process were issued subsequently for which there is no limitation prescribed, the impugned order can not be quashed on this ground. 8. The counsel for the petitioners,.in reply to the argument advanced by opposite party no. 2, submitted that expression "take cognizance" though not defined in Code, but, it indicates that only when Magistrate takes notice of the accusation and applies his mind to the allegation made in the complaint that the allegation would constitute an offence and decide to initiate judicial proceeding against the accused it can be said that cognizance of the offence has been taken. Merely because the complainant has been examined on solemn affirmation it can not be said that the cognizance has been taken. The Magistrate takes cognizance either when he passes order under Sec. 200/204 of the Code. Reliance has been placed on a decision reported in 1993(2) S.C.C. 16 (Kishun Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar). Paragraph 7 of this judgment has specially been relied by the counsel which reads as follows: "7. In order to appreciate the contention urged before us, it is necessary to notice a few provisions. Sec. 190 of the Code sets out the different ways in which a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence, that is to say, take notice of an allegation disclosing commission of a crime with a view to setting the law in motion to bring the offender to book. Under this provision cognizance can be taken in three ways enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the offence alleged to have been committed. Under this provision cognizance can be taken in three ways enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the offence alleged to have been committed. The object is to ensure the safety of a citizen against the vagaries of the police by giving him the right to approach the Magistrate directly if the police does not take action or he has reason to believe that no such action will be taken by the police. Even though the expression take cognizance is not defined, it is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that when the Magistrate takes notice of the accusations and applies his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or police report or information and on being satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence decides to initiate judicial proceedings against the alleged offender he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence. It is essential to bear in mind the fact that cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender. Mere application of mind does not amount to taking cognizance unless the Magistrate does so for proceeding under Sec. 200/204 of the Code." 9. Quashing of the impugned order on the ground that the prosecution is malicious, I am not convinced as the marriage of the son of petitioner no. 3 with the daughter of the complainant is admitted in the First Information Report of Teghra P.S. Case No. 104 of 2001 and also in the statement of Prabhat Kumar recorded under Sec. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with Teghra P.S. Case No. 104 of 2001, if after marriage the bride is not taken to her matrimonial home because of the demand of dowry a prima facie case is made out under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned order can not be quashed in the given facts and circumstances of the case as malicious prosecution. 10. Ground of limitation is also not available to the petitioner. The decision which has been relied by the petitioners also indicates that "mere application of mind does not amount to taking cognizance unless the Magistrate does so for proceeding under Section 200/204 of the Code". 10. Ground of limitation is also not available to the petitioner. The decision which has been relied by the petitioners also indicates that "mere application of mind does not amount to taking cognizance unless the Magistrate does so for proceeding under Section 200/204 of the Code". Sec. 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with examination of complainant if upon examination of complainant, the Magistrate postpones the issuance of process and proceed for enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code it amounts to taking cognizance. This view has been propounded in the Full Bench decision reported in 1980 B.B.C.J., 91 as well as 1993(2) S.C.C., 16. The cognizance was taken much before the passing of the impugned order within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no case is made out for quashing of the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.