ORDER
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. Heard.
2. Cognizance order passed by learned SDJM, Berhampur in I.C.C.No. 52 of 1998 vide order dated 7.12.1998 and the order of rejection of the petition Under Section 204, Cr.P.C. filed by the present petitioners vide order dated 6.4.1999 in the said case are impugned Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. on the ground of illegality.
3. As it appears from the impugned orders opp. party No. 1 who is the complainant in I.C.C. No. 52 of 1998, filed the complaint case alleging that the present petitioners took her from the custody of her grand-mother during her minorhood and sols her to one Damburu alias Damabuda Sahu who claims to be her husband and the latter utilised her for prostitution. After registration of the complaint petition learned SDJM ventured into an inquiry Under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and on its completion perused the record and found a prima facie case Under Sections 372/34, IPC against the petitioners and Under Section 373, IPC read with Section 5 of Immoral Traffic Act against said Damburu Sahu and issued process against them accordingly. After their appearance petitioners filed application Under Section 205, Cr.P.C. to dispense with personal attendance of petitioner No. 2 and also filed application purporting to be one Under Section 204, Cr.P.C. with a prayer to recall cognizance order on the ground of non-existence of prima facie case and for the delay in filing the complaint petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the photo identity card issued by the Election Commission goes to show that complainant is the wife of said accused Damburu Sahu and therefore the allegation regarding said accused utilising her for prostitution is prima facie improbable and not acceptable. Such a fact, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, need not be ventured into in this proceeding Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. because the allegation cannot be regarded as improbable.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that there has been delay of six years in filing the complaint inasmuch as the offence is said to have been committed when the complainant was 15 years old and she filed the complaint when she was 21 years old. According to him it has resulted in abnormal delay and therefore learned Magistrate should have refused to take cognizance. He argues that for the ends of justice let this Court quash the cognizance order by invoking inherent power vested in this Court Under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
6. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, as above, is not convincing inasmuch as the facts and circumstances in the case (which need not be elaborated or discussed for the sake of fair trial), the question of delay is a matter which may be gone into at the time of the trial. Even on the ground of delay alone the order of cognizance cannot be quashed in this case without detailly knowing the reason and reasons can be ascertained at the time of the trial. In that context, it may be noted here that provisions of law in Section 468, Cr.P.C. has no application regarding bar of limitation because the punishment prescribed for the offences of which cognizance has been taken are much more than three years for each of the offences.
7. For the reasons as stated above, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly the Crl. Misc. Case is not admitted and dismissed.