K. S. Sidhu, J. - (1.) This petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. deserves to be allowed. It will be seen that complainant Asha Devi lodged a report with the police on April 9, 1973, alleging that the petitioner and five others had committed offences against her on June 9, 1972 which were punishable under sections 354, 147, and 323 I. P. C. On investigation, the police discovered that there was no evidence to warrant the forwarding of the accused for trial. The police submitted a report to the learned Magistrate accordingly.
(2.) On August 2, 1978, the learned Magistrate took cognizance in the matter summoning the accused including the petitioners for proceedings under sections 354, 147 and 323 I. P. C.
(3.) The petitioners have challenged the said order on the grounds inter alia, that on August 2, 1978, when the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under sections 354, 147 and 323 I. P. C. the period of limitation prescribed for taking such cognizance had already expired. None of the three offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is punishable with imprisonment for a period exceeding three years. The limitation for taking cognizance had thus expired on June 9, 1975. It is true that the learned Magistrate could extend the period of limitation if he was satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that extension was necessary in the interest of justice. While taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate did not say that he was satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay had been properly explained to him, or that, it was necessary in the interest of justice to condone the delay. The impugned order must therefore, be quashed.;