JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 26.06.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur in Criminal Revision No. 26/2003 whereby cognizance order dated 7.3.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 24/2002 was quashed on the ground that cognizance taken was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard learned counsel for complainant-petitioner as well as accused respondents and learned Public Prosecutor at the admission stage and perused the record of the court below. 3. It was inter alia contended that the complaint was filed by the complainant-petitioner on 23.11.1997 for the incident occurred in the midnight of 19-20th November, 1997 and in these circumstances the petitioner cannot be held responsible where trial court passed the cognizance order few years after the incident and filing of the complaint. It was then contended that for the purpose of counting the period of limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the date of filing of the complaint or initiation of the criminal proceedings is to be seen. Reliance was placed on Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, 'reported in 2007(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 571 : 2007(3) Crimes 246 (SC) and Bharat Damodar Kale and another v. State of A.P., reported in 2004(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 12 : (2003) 8 SCC 559 . 4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents contended that cognizance was taken beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly quashed the cognizance order. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the rival submissions. It is not disputed that after four days of the incident i.e. on 23.11.1997 the complaint was filed by the complainant, therefore, in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Japani Sahoo's case (supra) delayed order of taking cognizance of issuing the process cannot be a ground for quashing the order of cognizance since it has been held that for the purpose of limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only the date of filing of the complaint or initiation of the prosecution is to be seen and not the date of taking the cognizance. In view of the above, this revision petition deserves.to be allowed. 6. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.6.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur in Criminal Revision No. 26/2003 is quashed and set aside and the order of taking the cognizance dated 7.3.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bharatpur is restored. Record of the court below be sent back.Revision allowed. *******