At the initial stage of deciding whether to frame charges, the court is not required to meticulously judge the truth and veracity of the evidence, and strong suspicion against the accused can lead to the presumption of guilt for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not.

Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 946 of 2007 (State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & others) as well as order dated 26.07.2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station Purkaji, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the applicants that earlier the applicants had approached this Court against the order dated 26.07.2008 passed by the court below, but the criminal revision was dismissed as not pressed. Counsel for the applicants has further contended that there is absolutely no evidence on record to frame charges against the accused.

4. Counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that since liberty was not given to the applicants to file fresh revision or application, the present application has been barred.

5. The lower court has mentioned in its order that the matter in question needs appraisal of evidence which has to be adduced in the matter. As far as the provisions of Section 227 Cr.P.C. are concerned in 2001 AAR 394 (SC), Om Wati Vs. State (Delhi Administration), it has been laid down as under: -

"7. Section 227 of the Code provides that if upon consideration of record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused for which he is required to record his reasons for so doing. No reasons are required to be recorded when the charges are framed against the accused persons. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal [ 2000 (1) SCC 722 ] held that there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge. Taking note of the burden of the pending cases on the courts, it wa s held:

"Even in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report the Magistrate is required to write an order showing the reasons only if he is to discharge the accused. This is clear from Section 245. As per the first sub-section of Section 245, if a Magistrate, after taking all the evidence considers that no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction, he shall discharge the accused. As per sub-section (2) the Magistrate is empowered to discharge the accused at any previous stage of the case if he considers the charge to be groundless. Under both sub-sections he is obliged to record his reasons for doing so. In this context it is pertinent to point out that even in a trial before a court of session, the Judge is required to record reasons only if he decides to discharge the accused (vide Section 227 of the Code). But if he is to frame the charge he may do so without recording his reasons for showing why he framed the charge.

If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at this stage, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. It is a salutary guideline t