JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioners have preferred these Criminal Misc. Petitions No. 2711/2019 and 2710/2019 aggrieved by order dated 02.05.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Criminal Revision No.26/2011, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 24.05.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bari, District Dholpur was dismissed and against the order dated 28.05.2014, whereby objections filed by the petitioners was rejected and against the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur, whereby he confirmed the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by learned Magistrate. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that an FIR No.60/1998 was registered at Police Station Sarmaathura, District Dholpur on 02.04.1998 for the offences under Sections 218 & 120-B of IPC. Initially, Magistrate dropped the charge-sheet as the same was filed beyond limitation. State and Ramprakash filed revisions before the Sessions Judge which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to pass fresh orders. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 24.05.2018 has extended the period for taking cognizance under Section 473 of Cr.P.C. and has taken cognizance against the petitioners. Revision petition preferred against the said order stands dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur vide order dated 02.05.2012. A misc. petition was preferred before the High Court. High Court disposed of the petition and gave liberty to the petitioners to file objections before the court below. The said objections were also dismissed by the court below and revision preferred against the said order also stands dismissed. 3. It is also contended that the allegations in the FIR is that Munna as entered in the outdoor patient Register was changed from Munna to Manoj. It is contended that a departmental enquiry was initiated, wherein it was revealed that Male Nurse (Grade-II), who is petitioner No.3 in misc. petition No.2711/2019 had wrongly entered the name of Munna and when he was informed by the attendant that the name of patient is Manoj, he corrected the name at the same time. It is contended that from the report obtained from hand writing expert, it is revealed that the correction was done by Male Nurse Omprakash himself. 4. petition No.2711/2019 had wrongly entered the name of Munna and when he was informed by the attendant that the name of patient is Manoj, he corrected the name at the same time. It is contended that from the report obtained from hand writing expert, it is revealed that the correction was done by Male Nurse Omprakash himself. 4. It is also contended that in all document relating to the treatment, name of Manoj S/o Hiralal is appearing which goes to show that only in the O.P.D. Register, erroneously Munna was written by Omprakash but he corrected the same and for that reason in all subsequent documents relating to treatment, discharge ticket etc., name of Manoj is appearing in the hospital documents. 5. It is also contended that there was no justification for the court below to condone the delay under Section 473 of Cr.P.C., more particularly when from the departmental enquiry, it is revealed that the correction was done only in the O.P.D. Register and the same was done by the Male Nurse who had made entry. 6. It is contended that the court below has taken cognizance after the prescribed period of limitation. The entire treatment documents bear the name of Manoj S/o Hiralal which establishes that no offence under Sections 218 & 120-B of IPC have been committed by the petitioners. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that the orders passed by the court below do not call for any interference. 8. I have considered the contentions and have carefully perused the entire record. 9. Patient's name as mentioned in the discharge ticket, the prescription of the doctor, the medical bills and the outdoor patients Register is Manoj S/o Hiralal. It is only in the O.P.D. Register that Munna was changed to Manoj and that too was done by the Male Nurse who in his departmental enquiry has stated before the Enquiry Officer that he wrote the name as Munna and when he spoke the name of patient Munna, the attendant objected and said that the patient's name is Manoj, on which he corrected the entry from Munna to Manoj. From the report obtained from hand writing expert, it is revealed that the said correction was done by Male Nurse Omprakash who had made the original entry in the Register. From the report obtained from hand writing expert, it is revealed that the said correction was done by Male Nurse Omprakash who had made the original entry in the Register. Since the entire entries in the hospital Register pertains to Manoj S/o Hiralal, it cannot be inferred that the entry in the O.P.D. Register was done purposely to protect Manoj from some criminal prosecution. 10. The period of taking cognizance for under Sections 218 & 120-B of IPC is three years. Initially court refused to take cognizance, however, subsequently when the matter was remanded, court has taken cognizance. 11. I do not find any justification in the order passed by the court below in taking cognizance, more particularly when from the departmental enquiry, it is revealed that erroneously name of Munna was entered in the O.P.D. Register which was immediately changed by Male Nurse and the entire entries in the hospital record is in the name of Manoj S/o Hiralal. 12. In view of the same, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would tantamount to abuse of process of the court and would cause grave injustice to the petitioners as the matter is of year 1998 and a period of twenty one years have already lapsed. 13. Hence, misc. petitions are allowed. Impugned orders passed by the court below are set aside. Proceedings pending before the court below are quashed. 14. Stay applications stands disposed. 15. Copy of this order be placed in connected file.