At the stage of considering quashing of charge-sheet, only prima facie case is to be seen, and the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramanuj Tiwari and Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri N.D. Rai, learned Additional Government Advocate-Ist, assisted by Sri Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief holder appearing on behalf of the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsels for the parties.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused/applicant (Prateek Gupta) with a prayer to quash the order dated 6.3.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Case No. 5471A of 2017 (State Vs. Prateek Gupta and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 328, 427, 316 I.P.C., > Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 66 Information Technology Amendment Act, Police Station Quarshi, District Aligarh, whereby the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant before the Magistrate has been rejected on the ground that same is not maintainable before the Magistrate, as the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session and judgment and order dated 15.5.2019 passed by the Session Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 130 of 2019 against the order dated 6.3.2019 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby revision preferred by the applicant has been rejected confirming the order dated 6.3.2019.

3. This case has checkered history of litigations. Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts, in brief, for the purpose of controversy involved in the present matter are that the applicant-Prateek Gupta and Monica Jindal (daughter of opposite party no.2) were married on 5.12.2015, but the said marriage was not successful resulting into several litigations between the parties on account of acrimonious relations between them. As a result thereof, on 22.7.2016, Arun Kumar Agarwal (opposite party no.2/father-in-law of the applicant) lodged FIR against the applicant and nine other family members at Police Station-Quarshi, District Aligarh, registered as case crime no. 0609 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 328, 427, 316 I.P.C., > Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 66 Information Technology Amendment Act. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the ten accused persons on two different dates i.e. 11.4.2017 and 12.7.2017. The charge-sheet dated 11.4.2017 was submitted against four accused persons namely Prateek Gupta (applicant), Shashank Gupta, Smt. Mithlesh Gupta and Mahesh Chandra Gupta, on which, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 19.4.2017 registering the same as Case No. 5471 of 2017. Charge-sheet dated 12.7.2017 was submitted against six accused persons namely, Rashmi, Babloo @ Ashish Gupta, Rajni, Pappu @ Manoj Gupta, Sunaina and Gaurav Gupta, on which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh took cognizance on 24.7.2017 registering the same as case no. 9373 of 2017.

4. The applicant preferred an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21340 of 2017 for quashing the charge-sheet dated 11.4.2017 against him in Miscellaneous Case No. 5471 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 0609 of 2016, U/s 498A, 323, 504, 506, 328, 307, 427, 316 IPC, section 3/4 D. P. Act and section 66 of Information Technology Amendment Act, Police Station-Quarsi, District Aligarh pending in the concerned court below. This Court refused to quash the charge-sheet against the applicant.

The said application of the applicant was disposed of vide order dated 14.7.2017, which is reproduced herein-below:-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramanuj Tripathi, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the chargesheet in misc. case no. 5471 of 2017 arising out of case crime no. 0609 of 2016, U/s 498A, 323, 504, 506, 32