ORDER : Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), challenging the orders dated 9.4.2013 and 13.8.2013. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that FIR was registered against the petitioners on 14.11.2008 under Sections 341, 323, 143 & 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Raini. However, challan was presented in the court after a delay of five years on 5.3.2013 under Section 323, 447/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. So far as offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is concerned, maximum punishment qua imprisonment is one year. So far as offence under Section 447 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is concerned, maximum punishment qua imprisonment is three months. As per Section 468 Cr.P.C., 1973 court could take cognizance of the offence within one year. However, in the present case, challan had been presented in the court after about five years. In the present case, petitioner had earlier filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2545/2009 seeking quashing of the FIR and for fair investigation of the case. The said petition was disposed of on 19.9.2011, in the presence of the state counsel. The case diary was not called by the court. Assuming that the limitation would start from 19.9.2011, even then the challan had been presented beyond the period of limitation. 3. Learned state counsel on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the trial court has rightly taken cognizance of the offence as any negligence committed by the Investigating Officer would not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings in question. Section 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:- "Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." Section 447 Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:- "Punishment for criminal trespass.-Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, with fine or which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under:- "Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest. (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, be shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1)." 4. Thus, a combined reading of the above provisions reveal that, in the present case, court could take cognizance of the offence within one year as the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is punishable with imprisonment for a term up to one year. However, in the present case, the offence was committed on 13.11.2008, whereas, the challan was presented on 5.3.2013. However, in the present case, the offence was committed on 13.11.2008, whereas, the challan was presented on 5.3.2013. As per Section 473 Cr.P.C., 1973 the period of limitation can be extended in certain cases if the court is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay had been properly explained or that it was necessary to do so in the interest of Justice. However, in the present case, there is no cogent explanation on behalf of the Investigating Agency as to why the challan had been presented after the expiry of the period of limitation. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned trial court erred in dismissing the application moved by the petitioners under Section 468(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 The court of revision further fell in error in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently application (Annexure-3) moved by the petitioners under Section 468 (2) Cr.P.C., 1973 is allowed.