- (1.) IN this Cr.M.P the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.3.05 passed in Complaint Case No. 345/04 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 323/448/379/34 IPC against the petitioner. The only point which has been taken for challenging the said order is that the complaint petition has been entertained after lapse of 16 months from the date of dismissal of the protest petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not taking steps for several months after dismissal of the protest petition itself goes to show malafide of the complainant and that is the sufficient ground for quashing the prosecution against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant was prosecuted in other cases and he has been convicted in those cases, which also goes to show the antecedant of the complainant. Notice was issued to the complainant -O.P.No.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as also learned A.P.P opposed the Cr.M.P. It has been submitted that the protest petition filed by the complainant was dismissed for default and there is no bar in the law for filing a fresh complaint. There is no period of limitation as well for filing the complaint after dismissal of the protest petition and on the said ground there is no illegality in the impugned order taking cognizance. It has been submitted that the learned Court below after taking into consideration the allegations made in the complaint, which have been supported by the solemn affirmation and the other statements, has found that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for taking cognizance of the said offences against him. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions and on perusal of the facts and materials on record, I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the O.P.No.2. No provision of law has been placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner in order to show that the complaint made after 16 months from the date of dismissal of the protest petition is barred by law. Further, that only because there was a delay in filing the complaint petition after dismissal of the protest petition, malafide cannot be presumed in absence of clear and cogent material on record to substantiate the same. I, therefore, find no legal ground for interfering with the impugned order taking cognizance dated 5.3.05 of the learned Court below. This Cr.M.P is, accordingly, dismissed.;