P.S. Teji JUDGMENT
P.S. Teji, J.
1. A common order on charge dated 02.03.2007 and the charge framed dated 02.03.2007 has been challenged against the petitioners in these three petitions, therefore, all these petitions are decided together.
2. Aggrieved by the common order on charge dated 02.03.2007 and the charge framed dated 02.03.2007 under Sections 420/467/ 468/448/120-B/109 IPC, the present revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioners. In the order dated 02.03.2007, it was observed by the trial court that "At this stage, detail discussion is not required......"
3. The facts, in brief, are that Mr. Tajun K. Sahgal made a complaint to the police that he being a partner of M/s. Magnum Corporation took on lease premises bearing No. D-4, Defence Colony, New Delhi from Major Pavinder Ahluwalia for a period of two years w.e.f. 25.05.1994. On 25.05.1996, he received a telephonic call from Mrs. Anila Ahluwalia inquiring as to why the complainant had illegally handed over the possession of the premises to a third person. On inquiry, the complainant came to know that his partner Rakesh Thapar had illegally given the leased premises to one Manish Jain. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 392/1996, under Sections 406/408/420 IPC, Police Station Defence Colony was registered.
4. During investigation, the police found the involvement of the petitioners/accused persons including co-accused Rakesh Thapar and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court. The trial court vide impugned order dated 02.03.2007 ordered to frame charge under Sections 420/467/468/448/120-B/109 IPC and framed charges thereunder against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty.
5. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the material available on record.
6. Arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are that the trial court has not given any reasoning finding the prima facie guilt of the petitioners which led to the framing of charge against them. It was further argued that neither the allegations nor the reasoning having concurrence with the same have been recorded by the trial court while passing the order on charge. It was further argued that the order under challenge is a non-speaking order.
7. Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. provides for discharge of an accused in a case where if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. When no case for discharge of an accused as provided under Section