Oral Judgment:
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 10/02/2026, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case No.2332/2010 and further sought discharge of the petitioner from Regular Criminal Case No.2332/2010.
3. Mr. Bhate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court had passed the order dated 10/02/2026 of framing charge, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/accused. Though the learned Trial Court has recorded that the petitioner was heard, in fact, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put across his case and without putting the relevant documents to the petitioner/applicant, the charge came to be framed by the learned Trial Court. The act of the Trial Court is arbitrary, unreasonable and has caused serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner/accused. An opportunity of hearing was denied to the petitioner as such, impugned order framing of charge on the very same day i.e. on 10/02/2026, without granting a separate opportunity to the petitioner is, therefore, arbitrary, unreasonable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Fresh opportunity may be given to the petitioner/accused and after hearing the petitioner the said application can be decided and the Trial Court may be directed to decide the same within a stipulated period.
4. As against this, Mrs. Lande, learned Counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the petition on the ground that petitioner/accused has filed the Writ Petition only with an intention to prolong the trial. The petitioner/accused himself has remained absent before the Trial Court for a very long time and the complainant has taken pains for securing presence of the accused. The concerned jurisdictional Magistrate has also put questions to the petitioner and after receiving the explanation has framed the charge. Grievance of the petitioner is, therefore, unjustified and the petition is filed only with an intention to somehow protract the trial, which is pending since the year 2010. She, therefore, prayed for rejection of petition.
5. Provision of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for discharge of the accused and recording of the reasons for doing so, if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :-
“227. Discharge. – If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”
6. Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the other hand, provides for framing of the charge, if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, the Judge considers that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The words “if, after such consideration”, as provided under Section 228 of the Code relate back to the consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, as mentioned in Section 227 providing for discharge of the accused.
7. Thus, it could be seen that the law does not provide for a separate hearing under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of framing of the charge. Consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution on that behalf can then also be relied upon for framing of the charge under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Thus, the contentions of the petitioner that the impugned order of framing of charge is illegal as the same was passed without recording that the records and documents were considered and accused and prosecution were heard, appears to be erroneous interpretation of the provisions of Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The conjoint reading of provisions of Section 227 and Section 228 of the Code would reveal that no separate hearing and consideration of record and documents is necessary, if a detailed consideration is already undertaken while dealing with the discharge application and the charge is framed on the same day on which the application for discharge is decided, and if no application is filed for separate hearing on the framing of charge.
9. The record shows that framing of charge is not the only order passed on 10/02/2026. The learned Trial Court has also passed an order below Exh.1 on the same day i.e. 10/02/2026, rejecting the application for discharge filed by the accused/petitioner herein after a detailed hearing of the accused and prosecution. Perusal of the order dated 10/02/2026 below Exh.1, rejecting discharge application, clearly shows application of mind to the facts of the case and the record and the documents produced by the prosecution and hearing of accused and prosecution. The learned Trial Court has recorded reasoning that the allegations are about the accused making construction on more area than mentioned in the agreement, is sufficient enough an indication of application of mind of hearing on the submissions of accused on the application for discharge. The order, framing charge on the same day, can be said to have been passed on hearing the accused and the prosecution and considering the record and the documents produced therewith. No application was filed by accused for separate hearing on framing of charge.
10. I see no error or any perversity in the course adopted by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court, after putting relevant questions has also recorded the fact that the said charge was put to the petitioner and then passed order dated 10/02/2026. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.
(ii) Since the trial is pending since the year 2010, the learned Trial Court is requested to make an endeavour to complete the trial within a stipulated period and not beyond a period of eight weeks.
(iii) Rule stands discharged.
