The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of application of mind at the stage of framing of charge and taking cognizance, as emphasized by relevant legal provisions and precedents.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present revision petitions have been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-04 (Central), Delhi in the matter titled state vs. Akhilesh Yadav & Ors. arising out of FIR No.393/2014 registered under Section 308/34 IPC at Police Station Subji Mandi, Delhi.

2. As both the petitions arise out of the same FIR and impugn the same order, they are being taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as gone through the case records.

4. It has been submitted that as per the prosecution case, the alleged incident arose on 22.05.2014, where the son of the complainant during a cricket match had a minor verbal confrontation with one of his friends, Sanskar son of Akhilesh Yadav (Petitioner No. 1 in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 715/2016). The complainant on coming to know that Akhilesh Yadav and his other son namely, Aditya Yadav (Petitioner No. 2 in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 715/2016) were looking for his son, he reached the house of the petitioners to defuse the matter. However, not finding Akhilesh Yadav in his house, the complainant returned back. After some time, the petitioners along with others came to the complainant’s house and while Akhilesh Yadav slapped the complainant and dragged him for a considerable distance, Aditya Yadav hit him with a brick from behind. At the same time, Akhilesh Yadav gave a blow on his head with an iron rod. It was alleged that in the incident, the complainant’s wife, mother and a neighbour were also manhandled. It has been submitted that in the subsequent statement, the name of Amit Luhach (Petitioner in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 642/2016) was also specifically mentioned.

5. It was further submitted that initially, a kalandara under Sections 107/151 CrPC was registered against Akhilesh Yadav only. However, on the directions by the Metropolitan Magistrate, in an application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed by the complainant, the present FIR came to be registered.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order on charge dated 09.08.2016 passed by the trial court is a non-speaking order. It is contended that no reason has been assigned as to on what basis the trial court reached the conclusion that the prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners.

7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order framing of charge should be a reasoned and detailed order, is concerned, it is profitable to reproduce Section 228 CrPC:-

“228. Framing of charge - (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which –

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, [or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate] shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.”

8. The order on charge should indicate that in the opinion of the trial court a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Such an order need not be a lengthy or detailed one. Time and again, it has been held that only when the trial court, after due application of mind and considering the materi