JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Srivastava, J.—The revisionist has challenged the order passed on 31.1.2005 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Allahabad in case No. 169/2005, State v. Prem Lata Soni, through which, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 498-A, I.P.C.on the basis of a charge sheet submitted before him. It has been alleged from the side of the revisionist that the cognizance was barred by the law of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are that opposite party No. 2 Smt. Saraswati Soni was married to one Ghanshyam Das Soni. Ghanshyam Das Soni is now no more in this world.The revisionist is the sister-in-law (Jethani) of opposite party No. 2. On 18.2.2000 opposite party No. 2 lodged an FIR with the police of P.S. Kotwali, Banda. In this FIR opposite party No. 2 has said that her husband Ghanshyam Das Soni (who was alive at that time) and his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Smt. Prem Lata Soni abused her and after assaulting her turned her out of her residential house. Opposite party No. 2 is having a tummor for which she is being treated at district hospital, Banda. It has also been alleged in the FIR that opposite party No. 2 could not beget a child, therefore, her husband and sister-in-law (revisionist) often treated her with cruelty and regularly tortured her by calling her a ‘Baanjh’. In the FIR opposite party No. 2 has also mentioned that whenever she tried to meet her husband and the revisionist, they threatened her and did not permit her to live with them. 3. The case was investigated and re-investigated either by the police of Banda or Allahabad and ultimately a charge sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate, only under Section 498-A, I.P.C. who took cognizance of the offence on 31.1.2005. as is clear from the copy of the order which has been filed alongwith the affidavit filed in support of this revision as an Annexure. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Annexure No. 2 is an affidavit which was filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the investigating officer of the criminal case concerned on 23.4.2004. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Annexure No. 2 is an affidavit which was filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the investigating officer of the criminal case concerned on 23.4.2004. In para 4 of this affidavit opposite party No. 2 has mentioned that some ten years ago her husband and her Jethani maltreated her and subjected her to mental as well as physical torture. They often tortured her by calling her a ‘Banjh’ and finally they turned her out of the house. In para 5 of the said affidavit, opposite party No. 2 has further stated that she is having a tumor and due to physical assault by her Jethani eye sight of her left eye was impaired and therefore to get herself treated she had gone to Banda to live with her younger sister in the year 2000. Annexure-3 is a copy of the affidavit filed by the father of opposite party No. 2 before the investigating officer in which he has said that he got his daughter married to Ganshayam Das Soni. In subsequent paragraphs of the affidavit the father of the opposite party No. 2 has repeated the same facts which opposite party No. 2 has mentioned in paragraphs 4 & 5 of her affidavit(Annexure-2). 6. A counter affidavit has been filed from the side of opposite party No. 2. In her counter affidavit genuineness and veracity of Annexures 2 and 3 filed with the affidavit by the revisionist have not been challenged. Nowhere in the counter affidavit it has been said that the facts mentioned in Anexures 2 and 3 are false. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed, but it does not contain any additional fact which requires any mentioning here. 7. From the perusal of the records fact-wise it is established that opposite party No. 2 was finally turned out of her house in the year 1994 and thereafter she never lived either with her husband or with the revisionist. This fact is evident from Annexure-2. It is the affidavit which was filed before the investigating officer by opposite party No. 2 Smt. Sarswati Soni @ Anuradha. This affidavit was sworn on 23.4.04. This fact is evident from Annexure-2. It is the affidavit which was filed before the investigating officer by opposite party No. 2 Smt. Sarswati Soni @ Anuradha. This affidavit was sworn on 23.4.04. In para 4 of this affidavit opposite party No. 2 has also stated that some ten years ago both the accused had turned her out of their home after assaulting her. Thus the incident of assault and turning her out of home had taken place in the year 1994. It may be mentioned here that husband of opposite party No. 2 has already died and the entire case stands abated against him. From the version put forward before this Court by opposite party No. 2 it is evident that there is no allegation on the record which may indicate that after she finally left her house at Allahabad in the year 1994 she was ever subjected to mental or physical torture by the revisionist. 8. From the perusal of the order impugned it is evident that before taking cognizance of the offence on 31.1.2005 the learned Magistrate has not looked into the facts in respect of the limitation of the matter. There is nothing on record which may indicate that there is a separate order from the pen of the learned Magistrate that he had condoned the delay under Section 473 of the Code before taking cognizance in the matter on 31.1.2005. Had there been any such order in existence that must have been filed before this Court by the opposite parties. 9. During the course of arguments my attention has been drawn towards the following cases : 1. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tara Dutt and others, 2000(40) ACC 294 SC (Full Bench). 2. Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, 2009(2) UP Cr R 295 SC. 3. JT 1993 (4) S.C. 17 10. The case before me is fully and squarely covered by the first two cases, and the ratio as given in the two rulings of the Apex Court are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. So far as the third case, JT 1993 (4) SC17, Smt.Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy and others is concerned fact-wise this case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case before this Court. 11. So far as the third case, JT 1993 (4) SC17, Smt.Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy and others is concerned fact-wise this case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case before this Court. 11. In para 22 of Manju Ram Kalita case (supra) the Apex Court has held: "Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/ inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or atleast in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as ‘cruelty’ to attract the provisions of Section 498-A, IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty." 12. At this stage the case in hand requires to be examined taking into consideration the ratio and the legal provisions as stated above. 13. While giving details of facts it has been mentioned by opposite party No. 2 that she was subjected to physical and mental torture upto 1994 when she left her nuptial home finally and went to Banda to live with her younger sister. The date of the FIR containing the allegation of cruelty lodged with the Banda police is 18.2.2000 i.e. it was lodged after a lapse of some six years. More so, there is no allegation that the mental and physical torture was in continuance by the revisionist as there is no complaint against her to this effect between 1994 till this date. 14. In Tara Dutt’s case (Supra) the Apex Court has stated that the language of sub-section (3) of Section 468, Cr.P.C. makes it imperative that the limitation provided for taking cognizance in Section 468, Cr.P.C. is in respect of the offence charged and not in respect of offence finally proved. This clearly means that while calculating the period of limitation the date on which the offence is charged has significance and only this date is to be considered while computing the limitation. 15. This clearly means that while calculating the period of limitation the date on which the offence is charged has significance and only this date is to be considered while computing the limitation. 15. In first part of para 6 of this case the Apex Court has said— "Section 473 confers power on the Court taking cognizance after the expiry of the period of limitation,if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained and that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice." 16. The second part of para 6 relates to the ratio of the case and that part is quoted hereunder : "This discretion conferred on the Court has to be exercised judicially and on well recognized principles. This being discretion conferred on the Court taking cognizance, where-ever the Court exercises this discretion, the same must be by a speaking order. In absence of a positive order to that effect it may not be permissible for a superior Court to come to the conclusion that the Court must be deemed to have taken cognizance by condoning the delay whenever the cognizance was barred and yet the Court took cognizance and proceeded with the trial of the offence." 17. In the case in hand, it is clear from the facts that the last incident of cruelty and torture had occurred in the year 1994 and cognizance of the offecne has been taken on 31.1.2005.No order has been passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 473 of the Code which indicates that he had not condoned the delay while passing the impugned order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the cognizance dated 31.1.2005 is barred by the principles of limitation as contained in Section 468 of the Code. 18. On the basis of the above discussions, I am of the view that the revision has got force and it is liable to be allowed. 19. The revision is allowed. The order impugned dated 31.1.2005 is set aside and the entire proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate in Crl. Case No. 169/05, State v. Prem Lata Soni is quashed. ————