IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22826 of 2007 VIJAY PRAKASH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5 21.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for O.P. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order taking cognizance dated 10.3.1992 which arises out of Complaint Case No.180/1986. The offence is under Section 418 IPC. The order dealing with the allegation made in the complaint is not required to be recorded in this order because the very pointed submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner. His submission is that the complaint in question was instituted in the year 1986. Cognizance of the same was taken on 10.3.1992. Since the punishment under Section 418 IPC is maximum of three years, therefore, under Section 468 Cr.P.C. order taking cognizance stands barred and it is a good ground of quashing the proceeding as well as the order impugned. Further submission is that the order taking cognizance does not indicate that the Magistrate has applied his mind for condo nation or explanation for taking cognizance beyond the period of limitation. The submission on this point is borne from the record. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to 2 interfere with the impugned order and the order taking cognizance dated 10.3.1992 in Complaint Case No.180/1986 stands quashed. The application is allowed. SKBOSE (Ajay Kumar Tripathi)