The court must apply its judicial mind and consider whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused while framing charges.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. In this application filed u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 39-1996 passed by. 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1996 whereby learned Sessions Judge ordered for framing of charges against the petitioners for the offence under sections 304-B and 20 1 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case, in brief is that Sri Gopi Raman the lodged his fardbeyan before the Sub- Inspector of Harlakhi Police Station on 1-12- 1994 allegating, inter alia, that his daughter Ganga Kumari was married with Sunil Kumar Jha about five years back and during the time of marriage some gifts were given by him to his son-in-law but his son-in-law was making demand of one Hero Honda Motor- Cycle and a Television which he was unable to fulfil the demand as a result of which it was alleged that his daughter was being tortured by her in-laws and other relatives and ultimately killed her on 1-12-1994 by burning her and with the help of some villagers they have cremated the dead body. On the basis of that fardbeyan a case was instituted under sections 498-A, 304-B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against eight persons including the petitioners. The petitioners said that they are innocent and they have committed no offence but falsely implicated in the case with malafide intention. During the course of investigation large number of persons were examined by the police and definite and positive evidence were collected, not only by the Investigating Officer but also by the supervising authorities. The petitioner case was that during the course of investigation large number of persons were examined by the police who have categorically stated that the deceased has died her natural death. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge -sheet against the petitioners u/s. 306 of the indian Penal Code. The petitioners further case was that from the facts stated above and from the materials collected during the course of investigation it was apparent that the petitioners are innocent and no offence u/s. 304-B or 306 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioners. However, on the basis of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial Learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani by the impugned order framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Secs. 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seriously assailed the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as being wholly illegal and without application of mind. Learned counsel submitted that while passing the impugned order framing charges against the petitioners learned Sessions Judge have not considered any materials available on record and has passed the order in mechanical way. Learned Counsel submitted that learned Sessions Judge ought to have assigned reasons for framing charges. In support of his contention learned counsel relied upon two decisions, one in the case of State of Karnataka V/s. L. Muniswami and others, in the case of Haji Minhajuddin and others V/s. State of Bihar and others.

4. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Roy Raman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned order contending that while framing charges the Court was not obliged to assign reasons in the order. When the court below was satisfied with regard to the materials available on record then there is no bar for framing charges against the accused persons.

5. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the learned counsel it would be useful to look into two provisions of the Code namely. Sec. 227 and Sec. 228, which reads as follows:

Sec. 227. Discharge. - If. Upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted t