D.P. Singh, J.

1. Heard both the sides at length.

This petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 20.6.2006 passed in Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 46 of 2004 by which the prayer for discharge preferred by the petitioners have been rejected.

2. According to learned Counsel the learned court below has failed to consider the materials on record which did not disclose any offence committed by these petitioners for offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that earlier the FIR was lodged under Section 304B, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which the police submitted final form showing "Mistake of fact"

3. The learned ACJM, Bermo at Tenughat after considering the materials before it decided to proceed against the petitioners under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code only. The above mentioned facts were reagitated through discharge petition but the trial court by order dated 20.6.2006 refused to entertain them without holding that there were sufficient materials on record to frame charge. In. this context the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon and 2004 (3) SCC 425.

4. The learned APP opposed on the grounds that the learned trial court has discussed the materials before it and after due consideration held that there were sufficient materials to frame charge against the petitioners.

5. On perusal of the records, it is apparent that a complaint was lodged by one Janardan Prasad Burnwal against all the six petitioners vide Complaint Case No. 65 of 2004 which was forwarded to Bokaro Thermal Police Station for registration of the case and investigation under Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. The police thereafter investigated the case and the I.0. under the directions of the S.P., Bokaro dated 30,10.2004 submitted final form showing "Mistake of Fact".

6. It is also apparent from the order dated 4.3.2005 that learned ACJM Bermo at Tenughat after perusal of the materials on record held that there were sufficient materials on record to proceed against the accused persons under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code only and cognizance taken Later on the trial court while disposing of the discharge petition preferred by the petitioners under Section 245 Cr.P.C, treating the same under Section 239 Cr.P.C. refused to discharge the petitioners.

7. A number of grounds have been taken by the petitioners in petition, based upon facts not on record that the allegations were false which could be appreciated only by the trial court.

8. According to him the consistent view of the Honble Apex Court is that for framing of charge the trial court should consider whether the evidence available on the record discloses and justify that charge be framed otherwise the trial court may discharge the accused persons.

9. In reply the learned APP relied upon and submitted-that at the time of disposal of the discharge petition under Section 227.228,239,240 and 245 Cr.P.C. the reasons are required to be recorded if discharge order is passed However the charge may be framed without recording reasons for showing why the charges were framed. The relevant portion of the decision regarding this case is as follows:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Sections 227,239 & 245 and 228 & 240- Discharge of accused- Requirement of recording of reasons in respect of- Framing of charge, forming of opinion in case of - Difference in the requirements, explained-Reason therefor, explained- Held, the moment discharge order is passed, it is imperative to record reasons- However, charge(s) may be framed without recording reasons for showing why the charge(s) were framed.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Sections 228 & 240 and Ch. III (Sections 26 to 35)- Framing of charge and determination of jurisdiction of court- Recording of reasons- Difference in the requirement, explained- Held, though charge(s) can be framed without recording reasons, where a question of jurisdiction is raised, and court