Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary for revisionist, Sri Namit Srivastava for respondent no. 2, learned AGA for respondent no. 1-State and perused the records.

2. The incident relating to this matter had taken place on 20.11.2009 regarding which FIR relating to case crime no. 500/2009 dated 20.11.2009 was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet dated 8.1.2016 was filed in court. The proceeding relating to said case is continuing before the court of Judicial Magistrate.

3. Thereafter, for same incident application under section 156(3) CrPC was moved, which was allowed by Judicial Magistrate on 23.1.2010. Said order was challenged before this court through Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1752/2010 (Krishna Kumar Soni and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another), by which interim order dated 10.2.2010. This court had stayed the operation of order dated 23.1.2010 passed by CJM, Chandauli. But on 13.12.2013, said writ petition no. 1752/2010 was dismissed by this court. After it, matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed against present revisionist in court on 25.3.2014 for offences under sections 287, 337, 338, 304A IPC.

4. The trial court had taken cognizance and summoned the accused-revisionist. After appearance, accused-revisionist moved application dated 11.8.2014 for his discharge on the ground that order of cognizance is time barred. Said application of discharge was rejected by the order dated 21.2.2015 of the court of CJM, Chandauli. Against this impugned order, present revision has been preferred by said accused.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that none of the offences of sections 287, 337, 338, 304A IPC are punishable with imprisonment of more than two years, therefore, period of limitation for taking cognizance of such offences cannot be more than three years in accordance with mandatory provisions of section 468 CrPC. Therefore, order of cognizance by trial court in this matter as well as impugned order dated 21.2.2015 are legally erroneous, which should be quashed and accused persons should be discharged.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant refuted these submissions and contended that delay in investigation and order of cognizance was due to interim order dated 10.2.2010 passed by High Court. If this period of interim stay is ignored, then remaining period is less than three years and order of cognizance cannot be said to be time barred.

7. Section 468 and 470 of CrPC reads as under:-

"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be:

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment."

“470. Exclusion of time in certain cases. (1) In computing the period of limitation, the time during which any person has been prosecuting with due diligence another prosecution, whether in a Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal or revision, against the offender, shall be excluded:

Provided that no such exclusion shall be made unless the prosecution relates to the same facts and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(2) Where the institution of the prosecution in respect of an offence has been stayed by an injunction or order, then, in compu