ORDER : Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 20.04.2015 passed by learned District & Session Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan and order dated 09.02.2015 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan vide which application filed by the petitioners under Section 468 Cr.P.C. was rejected. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 08.08.2005 alleging commission of investigation under Section 323 & 336 of IPC. The police submitted negative final report on 06.09.2015, the respondent No.2 complainant was served on 21.09.2005 and a protest petition was filed by the complainant on 12.04.2007. Thereafter, for six years, the matter languished for evidence of the complainant and ultimately, the court took cognizance on 01.08.2013. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the offence under Section 323 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of one year and for offence under Section 336 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of three months. In view of Section 468 Cr.P.C., it is contended that there is a bar to take cognizance after the lapse of the period of limitation, the period of limitation as provided in sub clause 2 of Section 468 Cr.P.C. is one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. 4. In the present case, since the occurrence took place on 08.08.2005 and the magistrate has took cognizance on 01.08.2013, the same is beyond limitation and therefore, the cognizance order is bad in eye of law. 5. Counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 has opposed the misc. petition. His contention is that the FIR was lodged on the date of the incident i.e. 08.08.2005 and therefore, the same was within the limitation. 6. Counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 has placed reliance on 2014(1) Criminal Court Cases 444 (Rajasthan) Rajendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2013(1) Civil Court Cases 001 (S.C.) Indra Kumar Patodia & Anr. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors. and 1990 CRI.L.J. 360 Basavantappa Basappa Bannihalli and another v. Shankarappa Marigallappa Bannihalli. 7. I have considered the contentions raised before the Court. 8. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors. and 1990 CRI.L.J. 360 Basavantappa Basappa Bannihalli and another v. Shankarappa Marigallappa Bannihalli. 7. I have considered the contentions raised before the Court. 8. Section 190 of Cr.P.C. deals with the provision pertaining to cognizance of offence by magistrate, it provides that a magistrate of first class may take cognizance of any offence:- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. 9. A perusal of the provision clearly points out that the cognizance is to be taken when the facts constitute an offence, so if a magistrate receives a complaint of fact which constitute such offence or a police report of facts which constitute an offence then he is require to taking cognizance. 10. In the present case in hand, the police submitted a negative final report on 06.09.2005 meaning thereby that the report did not contain facts which constituted an offence. Thereafter, the complainant appeared before the court on 30.11.2005 but no protest petition was filed till 12.04.2007. Meaning thereby that the protest petition was filed after a lapse of one year and eight months, the period of taking cognizance under Section 468 Cr.P.C. lapsed during the intervening period and even if, the protest petition is considered to be containing facts pertaining to commission of offence then also the same was beyond limitation. It is contended that evidence has been adduced in trial, be that as it may since there is a specific bar of taking cognizance under Section 468 Cr.P.C. merely because the court has proceeded after a lapse of twelve years, the petitioner cannot be put to trial when the offence itself provides for a punishment of one year. 11. As far as the judgment cited at bar in Indra Kumar Patodia & Anr. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors. (supra) was a case pertaining to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’), the Court has held that crucial date for computing period of limitation is date of filing complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not date of taking cognizance by Magistrate. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors. (supra) was a case pertaining to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’), the Court has held that crucial date for computing period of limitation is date of filing complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not date of taking cognizance by Magistrate. The Hon’ble Apex Court in that case was dealing with the provisions of NI Act, Section 142 of NI Act specifically provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence unless the complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. As far as Rajendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) is concerned, that was a case where a complaint was filed before the court of Judicial Magistrate on 16.10.2008, the date of incident was 07.08.2008, the court held that the complaint was within limitation on facts the said judgment also does not have applicability to the present case because in the present case, it is for the first time after a period of one year eight months that the protest petition was filed even considering the protect petition to be containing the facts constituting an offence, the same was beyond limitation and therefore, the cognizance order is bad in the eye of law. 13. Consequently, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order impugned is quashed and set aside and the proceedings pending before the court below are quashed. The stay petition also stand disposed.