JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 19.05.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 772 of 2013 by which cognizance of the offence under section 500, 504 and 506 IPC has been taken. 2. Two fold contentions have been raised by the petitioner; (i) the order taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 772 of 2013 which was filed three years after the alleged occurrence in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C is illegal, and (ii) the complaint case is a result of mala-fide of the complainant. 3. To fortify the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph no. 3 of the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and paragraph no. 5 of the wife of the complainant who has been examined as an enquiry witness. It is submitted that on a wholesome reading of the statement of the complainant and his wife it becomes abundantly clear that Complaint Case No. 772 of 2013 has been filed beyond the period of limitation. 4. By an order dated 19.05.2014, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under section 504, 506 and 500 IPC holding that there are prima-facie evidence that the accused has thrown stones and abused the family members of the complainant, illegally pressurizing the complainant to leave the house. In “State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa and Another” reported in (2002) 3 SCC 89 , it has been held that mala-fide of the complainant becomes secondary if the evidence of the complainant and the enquiry witnesses constitute prima-facie offence against the accused. At the stage of section 204 Cr.P.C when summons/warrant is issued against the accused person, he has no right to participate in the proceeding of the complaint case. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner that institution of Complaint Case No. 772 of 2013 is mala-fide and vexatious, in the above facts must fail. On the period of limitation, suffice would be to indicate that for application of the provisions under section 468 Cr.P.C, there must be indisputable evidence on record; the date of occurrence in the year 2010 is not affirmatively stated by the complainant and the enquiry witness. In the above state of evidence, this Court cannot assume that the alleged occurrence which has taken place in the year 2010 has occurred prior to 02.04.2010. In the above state of evidence, this Court cannot assume that the alleged occurrence which has taken place in the year 2010 has occurred prior to 02.04.2010. At a pre-trial stage, a fact which may be elicited through cross-examination of the witnesses cannot be presumed by the Court. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, finding no merit in this quash-petition, Cr.M.P No. 75 of 2016 is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all such plea which are available to him including the plea of limitation, at the appropriate stage.