JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Petitioner has preferred this Misc. Petition seeking quashing of cognizance order dated 10.08.2009 vide which the court has taken cognizance under Section 3(1)(6) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1961. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the present case in dispute, the property was purchased by the petitioner on 15.07.2006, the cognizance in the matter has been taken on 10.08.2009. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the offence is punishable with one year of imprisonment and therefore, as per Section 468 (b) of Cr.P.C. the complaint was barred by limitation and the court could not have taken cognizance after a period of one year. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Sainath vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2390/2016, decided by the Rajasthan High Court on 23.11.2016. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that similar matters came up before the Rajasthan High Court and the court has quashed the criminal proceedings being barred by limitation. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the judgment on which the petitioner has placed reliance. The facts of the present case are akin to the one which was before the High Court in Sainath vs. State (Supra). The cognizance in this case has been taken after a period of more than three years. The offence in this case is punishable with one year imprisonment, the court therefore was in error in taking cognizance after a period of one year. 7. In view of the same, the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner dated 10.08.2009 as well as the entire proceedings in regular Criminal Case No. 531/2009 pending before Judicial Magistrate Sanchore (now Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sanchore) against the petitioners are hereby quashed. 8. The Misc. Petition is accordingly allowed.