JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amar Saran, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned A.G.A. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 611 of 1997, P.S. Sisamau, under Section 494 I.P.C. (State v. Sunil Kumar and others) pending in the Court of VIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and also the order dated 5.11.1998 passed by M.M. VIIIth, Kanpur Nagar and the revisional Court order dated 18.8.1999 passed by 16th Additional Session Judge, Kanpur Nagar dismissing the criminal revision against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that cognizance was taken in this case on an F.I.R. under Section 494 I.P.C., whereas in view of Section 198 Cr.P.C. without a complaint filed by the aggrieved or by the father or mother of respondent No. 3, cognizance was barred. It is further contended that applicant No. 1 Sunil Kumar Gupta had already obtained a decree of divorce against respondent No. 3 even though it was by an ex parte order. In view of a decision of Krishna Gopal Diwedi v. Prabha Diwedi, 2002(1) SCC page 216 that even where divorce has been obtained by an ex parte order, no prosecution under Section 494 I.P.C. can be launched. 4. Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that on a perusal of the F.I.R., an offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. is also disclosed. This fact finds mention in the order of the Session Judge and no bar to cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate under Section 198 Cr.P.C., in a case under Section 498-A I.P.C. being filed on a police record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly as per the prosecution version mentioned in the F.I.R., the respondent No. 3 had left her matrimonial house in the year 1990 but the complaint was filed in the year 1997 and cognizance was taken shortly thereafter, hence it would be barred by limitation in view of the provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the fact that offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. also has maximum sentence of three years, this submission is correct. 7. In view of the fact that offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. also has maximum sentence of three years, this submission is correct. 7. In view of the above, criminal proceeding in criminal case No. 611 of 1997, P.S. Sisamau, under Section 494 I.P.C. (State v. Sunil Kumar and others) pending in the Court of VIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar is quashed. This writ petition is allowed. ————