ORDER : “Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.3831/2016 before JMFC II Court, Mangaluru, amount to abuse of the process of the court”? is the question involved in this case. 2. Petitioner No.1 is the company incorporated under the Companies Act carrying on general insurance business. Petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director and 1st petitioner No.3 is the Branch Manager of the petitioner-company. Petitioners are covered under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’). 3. On 2.5.2016, the Senior Labour Inspector of the respondent allegedly inspected the petitioner’s establishment. On such inspection, he filed a complaint before the trial court seeking prosecution of the petitioners for the offences punishable under section 30(1) of the Act and Rule 26 of Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1963 (for short ‘Rules’). He alleged the following violation by the petitioners: (i) Petitioners had not issued recruitment letters to its employees as required under Section 6-A and had not maintained combined muster roll cum register of wages in Form ‘T’ as required under Rule 24(9-a) of the Rules. (ii) Petitioners had not declared the weekly holidays to the employees and notified the same in the institution as required under section 12(1) of the Act. (iii) Petitioners had not maintained the required register and produced them before the complainant on demand, thereby incurred punishment under Rule 26. (iv) Petitioner had not maintained ‘T’ register as required under Sections 29 & 34 and Rule 24(9-b) and failed to produce the same, thereby committed the offence punishable under Rule 26 of the Rules. 4. Complaint was presented on 21.10.2016. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 18.11.2016, registered the case in C.C.No.3831/2016 and summoned the petitioners to take up trial. Petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the cognizance of the offence was taken beyond the period of time prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., therefore, continuation of the proceedings against them amount to abuse of the process of the court. 5. The first offence punishable under Section 31 of the Act carries punishment of the fine upto Rs.1,000/-. The offence punishable under Rule 26 carry the punishment of fine upto Rs.1,000/-. In such cases, Section 468 (2)(a) of Cr.P.C is attracted. 5. The first offence punishable under Section 31 of the Act carries punishment of the fine upto Rs.1,000/-. The offence punishable under Rule 26 carry the punishment of fine upto Rs.1,000/-. In such cases, Section 468 (2)(a) of Cr.P.C is attracted. Section 468 (2)(a) of Cr.P.C bars the court from taking cognizance of such offences beyond the period of six months from the date of the offence. 6. In the case on hand, apparently, the cognizance was taken beyond a period of six months prescribed under Section 468(2)(a) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, even if the prosecution against the petitioners continues, there are no chances of conviction and such prosecution amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3831/2016 on the file of JMFC II Court, Mangaluru, are hereby quashed.