JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This Application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.6161 of 2018 (State vs. Bhoop Kishor & another), under Sections 188, 171 IPC and 127 Representation of the People Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Rampur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad. 3. As per complaint (Annexure-1 of the application) in sequence of General Vidhan Sabha Election-2017, orders for Model Code of Conduct and Section 144 Cr.P.C. were promulgated and during the effect of the above orders, on 12.2.2017 at about 10:15 a.m., accused Bhoop Kishor Saini (Shiv Sena Candidate) and Vishal Sharma along with 40-50 motorcycles and 10-15 cars came to Imperial Trivium (Tiraha) Crossing by holding a roadshow where Sub Inspector-Pramod Kumar Sharma, on duty, and employees demanded permission of roadshow, which they could not show it, thus, they committed offence u/s 188 IPC. The procession was dispersed by the police and by registering Case Crime No.97/17, u/s 188/171H of IPC and 127 Representation of the People Act, matter was investigated and prima facie case was found against the accused-applicants. Names and addresses of the other accused persons could not be traced. According to Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C., a complaint should be filed by the competent officer in the matter, therefore, a complaint was filed. As per FIR, Annexure-2 of the application, Case Crime No.0097/2017, under Sections 188/171-H IPC and 127 Representation of the People Act, was registered against the applicants to the same aspect. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.1-Bhoop Kishor Saini was permitted by the competent authority for holding a roadshow of 100 cars and 200 motorcycles on 12.2.2017 since 11.00 A.M. to 4.00 P.M., vide its order dated 12.2.2017, but according to complaint only 40 to 50 motorcycles and 10 to 15 cars were used for the roadshow, therefore, in view of the permission granted by the competent authority, they have not flouted any order, hence, no offence of Section 171H of IPC has been committed by them. He further submits that for the offences u/s 171H & 188 IPC, 1860 and 127 Representation of the People Act, 1950, punishment provided is fine of Rs.500/-and six months imprisonment each, respectively. He further submits that for the offences u/s 171H & 188 IPC, 1860 and 127 Representation of the People Act, 1950, punishment provided is fine of Rs.500/-and six months imprisonment each, respectively. As per complaint version, the offence has been committed on 12.2.2017 and maximum sentence provided for the offences is six months, therefore, complaint should have been filed within a period of one year as provided in Section 468 Cr.P.C. but complaint has been filed after a period of one year i.e. on 15.6.2018, which is barred by time, but court below has not considered this aspect while passing the impugned order, therefore, it is not sustainable and liable to be quashed. 5. Learned AGA opposed the prayer of the applicants by contending that permission was granted on 12.2.2017 for a fixed period i.e. from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. but applicants had held a roadshow on 12.2.2017 at 10:15 a.m. and on a demand by complainant, they could not show the permission. 6. In the instant case the issue involved for consideration is, whether, complaint filed against the applicants is time barred and in view of Section 468 (2) (b) Cr.P.C. it is liable to be quashed. 7. As per impugned summoning order dated 15.6.2018, a complaint, on the same day, was presented by Sub Inspector-Pramod Kumar Sharma against applicants-Bhoop Kishor Saini and Vishal Sharma, under Sections 188/171 IPC and 127 Representation of the People Act, which was registered as a Complaint Case No.6161 of 2018 and learned Magistrate considering that complainant is a public servant, so there is no necessity to record statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and forming the opinion that from the available evidence on record offences, under Sections 188/171 IPC and 127 Representation of the People Act, appear to have been committed by applicants-Bhoop Kishor Saini and Vishal Sharma, accordingly, they were summoned for the date 26.7.2018. 8. 8. For proper appreciation of the matter and ready reference Sections 171H and 188 IPC, Section 127 the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Section 468 Cr.P.C. are quoted below :- "Section 171H IPC: Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorizes expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees; Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate." "Section 188 IPC: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.—Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." "Section 127 the Representation of the People Act, 1950: Disturbances at election meetings.— (1) Any person who at a public meeting to which this section applies acts, or incites others to act, in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together, 1[shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2[six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees], or with both]]. 3[(1A) An offence punishable under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable.] (2) This section applies to any public meeting of a political character held in any constituency between the date of the issue of a notification under this Act calling upon the constituency to elect a member or members and the date on which such election is held. (3) If any police officer reasonably suspects any person of committing any offence under sub-section (1), he may, if requested so to do by the chairman of the meeting, require that person to declare to him immediately his name and address and, if that person refuses or fails so to declare his name and address, or if the police officer reasonably suspects him of giving a false name or address, the police officer may arrest him without warrant." "Section 468 Cr.P.C: Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only 1. Provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to certain economic offences, see the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974 (12 of 1974 ), s. 2 end Sch. (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment." 9. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment." 9. From the above provisions, it is crystal clear that for the offence of Section 171H of IPC maximum punishment provided is fine of Rs.500/-and for the offences u/s 188 IPC and Section 127 Representation of the People Act, six months imprisonment is provided for each offence, therefore, in view of the provision of Section 468 (2) (b) Cr.P.C. the complaint should have been filed within a period of one year from the date of incident i.e. 12.2.2017, but it has been filed on 15.6.2018, which is beyond one year from the date of incident. 10. To decide the issue involved in the instant case, it will be apt to refer the following cases : In the case of State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh (1981) 3 SCC 34 (supra) respondent accused was charged u/s 406 IPC for misappropriating the amounts deposited with him as a cashier. The challan was presented against him on 13.10.1976. The trial court acquitted him of the charge u/s 408 IPC but convicted u/s 406 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. The respondent then filed an appeal to the High Court which was allowed and respondent was acquitted, mainly on the ground that prosecution launched against the respondent was clearly barred by limitation under Sections 468 and 469 Cr.P.C. According to High Court, charge-sheet clearly shows that the embezzlement is said to have been committed on 22nd August, 1972 and audit report, through which, the offence was detected is dated 5th January, 1973. Taking any of these dates, prosecution was barred by limitation u/s 468(2) (b) Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Apex Court has held that- "The object which the statutes seek to subserve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation. The prosecution against the respondent being barred by limitation the conviction as also the sentence of the respondent as also the entire proceedings culminating in the conviction of the respondent herein become non-est. For these reasons, given above, the Court hold that the point of law regarding the applicability of Section 468 Cr.P.C. has been correctly decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court." 11. In Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394 , in para 52 of the judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process by a court and in Krishna Pillai vs. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 SCC (Crl.) 646, it was held that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under Section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 after the expiry of one year from the date on which offence is alleged to have been committed. In view of contrary opinion, matter was referred to constitution bench for consideration whether for the purpose of computing the period of limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. relevant date is date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution or whether the relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. Constitution Bench in Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian and others (2014) 2 SCC 62 : (2014) 1 SCC (Crl.) 721: 2013 SCC OnLine SC 1043, in para 51 of the judgment has held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. 12. 12. Thus, from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cases, it is well settled that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution. 13. In the criminal procedure code Chapter XXXVI provides limitation period for certain types of offences for which lesser sentence is provided which is based on the policy of law to assist the vigilant and not the sleepy as expressed in Latin maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus. In the instant case, for the offences of Sections 171H & 188 IPC and 127 Representation of the People Act, the incident alleged to have occurred on 12.2.2017 and complaint has been filed on 15.6.2018, which is beyond a period of more than one year. For the offences maximum punishment provided is six months and as per Section 468 (2) (b) Cr.P.C. an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, period of limitation shall be one year thus the complaint filed by the complainant and on it cognizance taken by the Magistrate in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian and others (supra) and Section 468 (2) (b) Cr.P.C. is barred by time. The Magistrate concerned while passing the impugned order has not considered the law of limitation for taking cognizance in the matter, therefore, cognizance taken on 15.6.2018 by the Magistrate on complaint regarding incident of 12.2.2017 for the offences is against Section 468 (2) (b) Cr.P.C. as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh (supra). 14. 14. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as discussed herein above, and legal position on the point, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 15.6.2018 contradicts Section 468 (2) (b) Cr.P.C. as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh (supra), therefore, no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceeding of the above mentioned complaint case and to secure ends of justice, it is a fit case to quash the entire proceeding of complaint case by invoking the power provided u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the proceedings in the aforesaid case are, hereby, quashed and the application is allowed. 15. A copy of this order be transmitted to the lower court for compliance.