JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vijay Prakash Pathak, J.—The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Ram Ashish and three others with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 140/07, State v. Ram Ashish and others, under Sections 323, 504 IPC pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mau. The brief facts of the case are that regarding an occurrence dated 1.1.1998 at 7 p.m., NCR No. 2/1998 was got registered on the same date at 10 p.m. by the complainant Ram Singh Chauhan against the applicants with the allegations that accused/applicants were preventing him to place his madai on his land and when the complainant told that it was his land on which he is placing his madai, the accused became annoyed and started abusing him and beat him by lathi-danda. On an alarm, Smt.Gujrati, the mother of the complainant came there and she was also beaten by the accused persons. After registration of the NCR in the year 1998, permission for investigation was obtained from the Judicial Magistrate, Mau on 18.10.2006 and after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 323, 504 IPC and the Court took cognizance on 23.2.2007 of the said case. Thereafter the applicants moved an application that the prosecution was barred by time but the same was dismissed on 11.4.2008 by the learned Magistrate, against which a revision was filed, which was also dismissed by the learned lower revisional Court vide order dated 3.9.2009. Hence the present petition has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of the said case. 2. In the counter-affidavit filed by Ram Singh, the complainant of the aforesaid case, it has been stated that the applicants who were pre-planned, assaulted him and his mother by lathi-danda, due to which they sustained injuries, who were examined by the Doctor of Primary Health Centre. 2. In the counter-affidavit filed by Ram Singh, the complainant of the aforesaid case, it has been stated that the applicants who were pre-planned, assaulted him and his mother by lathi-danda, due to which they sustained injuries, who were examined by the Doctor of Primary Health Centre. It is further stated that NCR No. 1/98 was registered against the father, real uncle of the complainant and one Surendra Yadav, whereas NCR No. 2/98 was registered against the applicants in respect of the same incident happened on 1.1.1998 at 7 p.m. It is further stated that the Investigating Officer in collusion with the applicants submitted the charge-sheet as regards NCR No. 1/98 lodged from the side of the applicants against the father, real uncle of the complainant and said Surendra Yadav, whereas the Investigating Officer did not take any interest with regard to NCR No. 2/98. The complainant was in anticipation that the Investigating Officer will submit charge-sheet against the applicants as well because both the aforesaid NCRs were cross cases of the same incident. When the Investigating Officer did not do so, the complainant moved an application in the year 2006 for seeking progress report from the local police with regard to investigation of NCR No. 2/98 filed by him against the applicants and the learned Magistrate directed the local police to re-investigate in the matter and then the charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants, on which learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 10.11.2008, against which Criminal Revision filed by the applicants before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has also been dismissed. 3. Heard Sri Ravindra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri M.A.Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that taking of the cognizance by the learned Magistrate was barred by time as the maximum sentence for the offence under Section 504 IPC, is two years and for the offence under Section 323 IPC, it is is one year. Hence in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C. the limitation for taking cognizance was three years only but the cognizance was taken after a lapse of about 8 years and hence it was barred by time. Hence in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C. the limitation for taking cognizance was three years only but the cognizance was taken after a lapse of about 8 years and hence it was barred by time. He has further submitted that the learned Magistrate has illegally rejected the application of the applicants and the learned revisional Court has also dismissed the revision illegally without considering the provisions of law about limitation. He has also submitted that in view of Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the report submitted in non-cognizable case by Investigating Officer should have been treated as a complaint and the police officer by whom such report was made, shall be deemed to be the complainant and hence the matter should have been proceeded as a complaint case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA have submitted that the NCRs were registered in 1998 and order was passed by the learned Magistrate to investigate the matter but in the NCR registered against the complainant’s father, his real uncle and one Surendra Yadav, charge-sheet was submitted, whereas in the NCR registered against the applicants, the Investigating Officer did not take any interest and did not submit the report. Thereafter, an application was moved before the learned Magistrate about the progress of the matter and then an order for reinvestigation was made in the year 2006 and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer, on which learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance on 23.2.2007. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the application moved by the applicants for their discharge filed on the ground of delay in taking cognizance against them. They have also submitted that the learned lower revisional Court has also rightly rejected the revision filed by the applicants as the cognizance was legally taken by the learned Magistrate and it was delayed only due to the negligence of the Investigating agency but for no fault of the complainant. It is submitted that in view of Section 473 of Cr.P.C., the learned Court may take cognizance of an offence after expiry of period of limitation,if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. 5. It is submitted that in view of Section 473 of Cr.P.C., the learned Court may take cognizance of an offence after expiry of period of limitation,if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the verdict of the Apex Court given in Sanapareddy Maheedhar and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2008(60) ACC 319. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid verdict has been pleased to observe that in view of Section 473 Cr.P.C., the Court is empowered to take cognizance of an offence after expiry of limitation, if it is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained and it is necessary to do in the interest of justice. 6. Coming to the facts of the present case, the NCR No. 2/98 was got registered on 1.1.1998 at 10 p.m. by the complainant Ram Singh Chauhan against the applicants, under Section 323/504 IPC regarding the incident dated 1.1.1998 at 7 p.m, whereas the NCR No. 1/98 was got registered from the side of the applicants against the father, real uncle of the complainant Ram Singh and one Surendra Yadav regarding the same incident. In NCR No. 1/98, lodged from the side of the applicants, charge-sheet was submitted but in the NCR No. 2/98 lodged by the complainant against the applicants, although order for conducting investigation was passed on 6.10.1998, but no investigation was done and no police report was submitted and it is only when the complainant moved an application before the learned Magistrate about the progress of the said investigation, learned Magistrate passed separate order for re-investigation and then only the charge-sheet was submitted on 8.11.2006, on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 23.2.2007. Against the said order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate, the applicants moved an application before the learned Magistrate to the effect that taking of cognizance on 23.2.2007 by the learned Magistrate is against the provisions of law as the said cognizance has been taken belatedly and was barred by time, hence they may be discharged. Against the said order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate, the applicants moved an application before the learned Magistrate to the effect that taking of cognizance on 23.2.2007 by the learned Magistrate is against the provisions of law as the said cognizance has been taken belatedly and was barred by time, hence they may be discharged. On the said application, the learned Magistrate after considering the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that the cognizance has already been taken in the matter and in the interest of justice, the matter appeared to be decided on merits and the said application was accordingly rejected. Thereafter Criminal Revision No. 266/08 was filed by the applicants which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 3.9.2009. The learned lower revisional Court has observed that regarding the same incident NCR No. 1/98 was also registered in which charge-sheet was submitted but in NCR No. 2/98 inspite of the order passed on 6.10.1998 to investigate the matter, the local police did not investigate the same and now after the order, the police investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet. Hence it is apparent that in filing charge-sheet and taking cognizance, the delay was not caused due to the mistake of the complainant but due to slackness of the police. On the charge-sheet in the connected NCR No. 1/98, the cognizance has already been taken. In these circumstances, taking into consideration the provision of Section 473 Cr.P.C., the order has been passed in accordance with law by the learned Court below. Hence there appears no case to interfere with the same. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid verdict Sanapareddy Maheedhar and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (supra) has held that Court is empowered to take cognizance of an offence after expiry of limitation if it is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained and it is necessary to do in the interest of justice. The provisions of Section 473 Cr.P.C.is also clear on this point, which provides that any Court may take cognizance of an offence after expiry of period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. 8. 8. In the present matter, the delay was properly explained as the same was caused due to slackness of the investigating agency and not due to fault of the complainant and regarding the same incident in connected NCR No. 1/98, charge-sheet was already submitted in which cognizance was also taken. Hence in the interest of justice, cognizance was taken in the NCR No. 2/98 as well, as both the cases were cross cases of the same incident. Hence taking of the cognizance by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any error or law and learned lower revisional Court has rightly rejected the revision filed by the applicants. 9. The next argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that the matter should have been proceeded as a complaint case in view of Explanation to Section 2 (d) of the Cr.P.C as the report was submitted by the police after investigation in a non-cognizable offence has no substance and appears to be misconceived as according to the definition of complaint as given under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence but does not include a police report. According to the Explanation given to the said definition, a report made by a police officer in a case, which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence, shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom said report is made, shall be deemed to be the complainant. The definition of police report is also given in Section 2(r) as "police report" means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173. Obviously the condition of this Explanation is aimed at clarifying the legal position that even investigation of a non-cognizable offence by a police officer is unauthorised i.e. it has been conducted without prior permission of the concerned Magistrate, it would amount to a complaint on the basis of which cognizance may be taken by the Court. It is pertinent to notice that clause (r) of Section 2 of Cr.P.C.defined the words "police report" as a report forwarded by police officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173. It is pertinent to notice that clause (r) of Section 2 of Cr.P.C.defined the words "police report" as a report forwarded by police officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173. It is thus crystal clear that unless a report made by the police officer falls within the purview of Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., it cannot be said to be a police report in view of the said Explanation. Hence by necessary implication a report by a police officer in consequence of an unauthorised investigation into a non-cognizable offence, would necessarily be a complaint. It is, therefore, obvious that the Explanation to the definition of complaint has been added with an intention to take into its ambit a case of unauthorised investigation of a non-cognizable offence by a police officer but it does not mean that the police report as said in the said Explanation would fall within the ambit of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. 10. In the present matter, the NCR was got registered by the complainant, Ram Singh against the applicants in which the investigation has been made by the police in compliance of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The procedure for investigation in such matter of non-cognizable offence is provided under Section 155 Cr.P.C. and the matter was investigated by the police in view of Section 155 Cr.P.C. and the charge-sheet has been submitted. According to the said provisions of Section 155 Cr.P.C. any police officer receiving such order of Magistrate for investigation in a non-cognizable offence may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. Hence the investigating Officer investigated the matter according to the procedure as provided under Section 155 Cr.P.C. and submitted the charge-sheet under purview of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In view of aforesaid considerations and discussions, I find no infirmity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance as well as in order passed by the learned lower revisional Court in dismissing the revision. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ——————