IMPORTANT POINT
The need for a reasoned order while passing an order of discharge and the essentials of framing charges under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. The revision petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.1375/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda, where the prosecution alleges commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294(b), 354, 354-A(1), 354-C, 406 and 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. In this matter, Crl.M.P.No.4176/2023 was filed by the petitioners before the Magistrate Court seeking discharge on the allegations that no offences are made out from the prosecution records. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that going by the order impugned, the same is not a reasoned order and nothing stated in the order to justify the dismissal of the discharge petition. He also submitted that the petitioners deserve discharge for want of sufficient materials to attract the offences alleged as per the prosecution records.

4. It is submitted further that the discharge petition should not be dismissed by a cryptic and non-speaking order and the order should be a reasoned order. The decision of this Court in Nimmy Mathew v. State of Kerala reported in (2023 KHC 9273) has been placed before this Court. Another decision of the Apex Court in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others reported in (2022 KHC 6734) has also been placed. In paragraph 23 of the Ghulam Hassan Beigh’s case (supra) the Apex Court dealt with the essentials of framing charges under Section 227 of Cr.P.C held thus :

“In Sajjan Kumar v. CBI [(2010) KHC 4691 :

(2010) 9 SCC 368

: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371] : 2010(2) KLD 603 :

2010 (10) SCALE 22

: 2010 (95) Aaic 115 : 2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 1397, this Court had an occasion to consider the scope of Sections 227 and 228 CrPC. The principles which emerged therefrom have been taken note of in para 21 as under: (SCC pp. 37677)

“21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:

(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.

(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

(vi) At the stage of S.227 and S.228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as