JUDGMENT :

Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Yadava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant inter alia praying for following relief:-

(i) Quash the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Additional Session Judge Fast Track Court (ADJ FTC 1), Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Revision No.53/2018, CNR No.UPAN010032102018 "Jwala Prasad Maurya Versus Kasha Prasad Tivari HCP Thana Maharua, District Ambedkar Nagar.

(ii) Quash the impugned order dated 23.06.2018 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in the matter of charge sheet no. NIL/2015 dated 30.10.2015 in "State Vs. Jwala Prasad Maurya" in respect of Criminal Case No.239/2018 arising out of NCR No.19/2013, U/s 323, 504 I.P.C., dated 09.03.2013, Police Station Mahrua, District Ambedkar Nagar.

(iii) Quash the impugned charge sheet no. NIL/ 2015 dated 30.10.2015 in "State Vs. Jwala Prasad Maurya" in respect of Criminal Case No.239/2018 arising out of NCR No.19/2013, U/s 323, 504 I.P.C. dated 09.03.2013, Police Station Mahrua, District Ambedkar Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an NCR No.19/2013 came to be registered against the present applicant on 09.03.2013 under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C. only. The matter was investigated vide order dated 05.04.2013 by means of an application filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. The charge sheet was submitted in the court on 30.10.2015, therefore, his submission is that the learned trial court was incompetent to take cognizance of the offence after lapse of period of limitation provided under 468 Cr.P.C. specially when the complaint/charge sheet came to be filed after a lapse of three years, three months and twenty days and thereafter cognizance of the case was taken after a lapse of five years, three months and fourteen days. His further submission is that while passing impugned order, learned trial court did so in utter violation of provision contained under Sections 467, 468, 469 Cr.P.C. which are part of Chapter XXXVI. Learned trial court could not have taken cognizance of the matter as the same was barred by limitation. He, thus, submits that such order, which has been passed in flagrant violation of statutory bar, is nothing but a gross abuse of process of this Court, which deserves to be quashed.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has controverted the aforesaid submissions and has also submitted that in the fact of this case, the impugned order rightly came to be passed by placing reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bharat Damodar Kale & another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2003) 8 SCC 559.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant at length, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it requires to be clarified at the outset that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the alleged incident, in respect of which, an NCR bearing no.19/2013, Police Station Mahrua, District Ambedkar Nagar came to be registered at the behest of opposite party no.3 on 09.03.2013. This is also not in dispute that thereafter the opposite party no.3 moved an application dated 05.04.2013 seeking permission of investigation of this case under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. which came to be allowed and the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, a charge sheet came to be filed which was actually prepared on 30.10.2015 and the same was forwarded to C.O., Bheeti on 15.06.2016 and charge sheet no.19/2013 was submitted to the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Ambedkar Nagar on 29.06.2016 i.e. after a period of three years, three months and twenty days from the date of occurrence.

6. At this stage, it deserves to be mentioned that the learned trial court consciously took cognizance of this case vide its order dated 23.06.2018 and since the charge sheet was filed under Section