Gujarat High Court
Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta vs State Of Gujarat on 15 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 726 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================
HEENABEN BHADRESH MEHTA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
LD.SR.ADV.MR MITESH AMIN ASSISTED BY MR KSHITIJ AMIN AND MS
TEJAL A VASHI(2704) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JAY MEHTA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 15/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1 The present application has been preferred under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, seeking the following relief:
“8(A):The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise the
extraordinary powers and inherit powers as contained in
section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 quash and set aside the (ACB) Case No.04 of 2020
from the cognizance taken by the Ld. Sessions Judge-
Kutch Bhuj upon the charge-sheet No.10 of 2020 filed
on 04.11.2010 and further a supplementary charge-sheet
filed in the year 2021 for the the offences punishable
u/s. under section 120 (b), 406, 409, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code Code, 1860 Read
with 13(2) of The Prevention of the corruption act,
1988 arising from FIR bearing no. 11201017200011
dated 26.07.2020 and also the subsequent proceedings
being impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed by thePage 1 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
Ld. Sessions Judge- Kutch Bhuj below Exh. 108 in
Special (ACB) Case no. 04 of 2020 at Annexure-A (Pg.
no. 14 to 28), Annexure-B (Pg. no. 29 to 140),
Annexure-C (Pg. no. 141 to 251), Annexure-D (Pg. no.
252 to 283).”
2 The present applicant, who has been arraigned as
accused No.13 in the charge-sheet dated 04.11.2020,
preferred a discharge application below Exhibit 108
in Special (ACB) Case No.4 of 2020, seeking
discharge from the offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471
of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned
Sessions Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj, by the impugned
order passed below Exhibit 108, rejected the said
discharge application.
3 The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is as under:
3.1 The applicant came to be appointed as a
Director of Bhadresh Trading Company in the year
2008. It is the case of the applicant that she was
merely a non-executive woman director and
continued in that capacity till her retirement on
07.03.2016. According to the applicant, she was
only a namesake director and had never
participated in the day-to-day affairs or
management of the company. On 26.07.2020, thePage 2 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
impugned FIR came to be registered with Kutch
(West) Bhuj, CID Crime, Border Zone, for the
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406,
409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian
Penal Code, read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the
applicant was arraigned as accused No.3 along
with her husband, son and other accused persons.
Apprehending arrest, the applicant preferred an
application for anticipatory bail, which came to be
allowed by the learned Sessions Court vide order
dated 14.09.2020. On completion of the
investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed on
04.11.2020, followed by a supplementary charge-
sheet in the year 2021. Thereafter, the applicant
preferred a discharge application, which came to
be rejected by the learned trial Court. The said
order is the subject matter of challenge in the
present proceedings.
4 Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mitesh Amin,
assisted by learned advocate Mr. Kshitij Amin,
appearing for learned advocate Ms. Tejal Vashi for
the applicant, and learned APP Mr. Jay Mehta
appearing for the respondent-State.
5 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mitesh Amin, assisted
by learned advocate Mr. Kshitij Amin, submitted that
Page 3 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
the impugned order suffers from complete non-
application of mind and proceeds without
appreciating the prosecution case in its proper
perspective so as to connect the present applicant
with the alleged offences. It is submitted that the
learned trial Court has failed to consider the vital
aspects of the case and has rejected the discharge
application without dealing with the contentions
raised by the applicant or discussing any prima facie
material available against her. It is submitted that, as
per the prosecution case itself, an amount of Rs.17
Crores was received by Bhadresh Trading Company
Limited (BTCL) during the period from 18.03.2013 to
20.03.2013 and the said amount was immediately
returned on 19.03.2013 and 20.03.2013 through the
account of Kutch District Central Co-operative Bank
Limited (the ‘KDCC’ referred hereinafter) from which
it had been transferred. It is submitted that neither
the present applicant nor BTCL derived any monetary
benefit from the said transaction and, therefore,
there is no material to indicate any wrongful gain to
the applicant.
6 Learned senior advocate Mr. Amin further submitted
that the applicant has been arraigned as an accused
solely on the ground that she was a Director of BTCL.
It is submitted that she was appointed only to comply
with the statutory requirement of appointing one
Page 4 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
woman director under the provisions of the
Companies Act and that she remained merely a non-
executive woman director. It is submitted that the
applicant resigned from the Directorship with effect
from 07.03.2016 and, throughout her tenure, she
never participated in the day-to-day affairs or
management of the company. Her appointment was
merely a formality to satisfy the statutory
requirement.
6.1 It is further submitted by the learned senior
advocate Mr. Amin that the allegation against the
applicant is that she was a part of the Board
Meeting in which a resolution was passed
authorising BTCL to stand as guarantor and to
issue a corporate guarantee in favour of RBL
aggregating to Rs.30 Crores. However, on referring
to the minutes resolution, it is submitted that the
applicant was not present when the resolution was
passed and, therefore, she cannot be connected
with the said transaction. Learned senior advocate
Mr. Amin submitted that the minutes of the Board
Meeting have deliberately not been produced by
the prosecution, as the same would clearly
indicate that the applicant was absent at the
relevant meeting. It is further submitted that even
the guarantee deed dated 02.02.2013, executed in
favour of RBL for obtaining an agricultural loan for
Page 5 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
mango cultivation, neither bears the signature of
the applicant nor establishes any role played by
her in its preparation or execution. It is also
submitted that from the date of her appointment
till her resignation, the applicant never drew any
salary or remuneration from BTCL.
6.2 Learned senior advocate Mr. Amin further
submitted that, even with regard to the allegations
of forgery, it is not the case of the prosecution that
the applicant forged any document or obtained
any benefit therefrom. Relying upon the law laid
down by the Apex Court in various decisions, it is
submitted that the principle of vicarious liability
can be invoked only when the statute specifically
provides for the same. Since the Indian Penal Code
does not incorporate any provision creating
vicarious criminal liability in the present context,
the applicant cannot be prosecuted merely
because she happened to be a Director of the
company. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned
senior advocate Mr. Amin that there is neither any
specific role nor any overt act attributed to the
present applicant. Despite the absence of any
material indicating her involvement or control over
the day-to-day affairs of the company, the learned
trial Court rejected the discharge application
without assigning cogent reasons or applying its
Page 6 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
judicial mind. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is
prayed that the present application be allowed and
the applicant be discharged from the offences
alleged against her.
7 Learned APP Mr. Jay Mehta, per contra, submitted
that the present applicant has been specifically
named in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet. It is
submitted that, as per the allegations contained in
the charge-sheet, the applicant had signed the
resolution passed by the Board of Directors of
Bhadresh Trading Company Limited for standing as a
guarantor in respect of the loans sanctioned to
various farmers. Learned APP further submitted that,
at the stage of considering a discharge application, a
detailed evaluation or appreciation of the evidence is
not permissible. It is, therefore, submitted that the
learned trial Court has rightly rejected the discharge
application preferred by the present applicant and no
interference is warranted with the impugned order.
8 Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, it would be apposite to first refer to the
allegations made in the impugned FIR, wherein the
present applicant has been arraigned as accused
No.3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under:
Page 7 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
“The loan amounts sanctioned in the year 2013 in
the names of all these 119 farmers were subjected to
a well-planned criminal conspiracy hatched by the
accused Directors of Bhadresh Trading Corporation:
(1) Bhadresh Vasantray Mehta, (2) Parth Bhadresh
Mehta, (3) Hina Bhadresh Mehta, all residing at 81-
82, Infinity Tower, Narayan Dabholkar Road, Mumbai;
as well as the partners of Arpit International, Jayanti
Jethalal Thakkar, residing at B/4, Sunny House,
Shivajinagar, Vavle Estate, Thane, Maharashtra; and
the President of The Abdasa Taluka Dhiran Ane
Bachat Mandali Ltd., Jayanti Jethalal Thakkar, as well
as its Secretary Girirajsinh Kanubha Jadeja, residing
at Narayanpar, Taluka Abdasa, District Kutch; and
Chetan V. Bhinde, residing at Bhuj; and Kumbhar
Mamad Sumar, residing at Sabhrai, Taluka Mandvi,
District Kutch, in collusion with Sanjay Tripathi, the
Manager of K.D.C.C. Bank, Naliya Branch, residing at
Khonafaliyu, Naliya, Kutch, at present residing at
Yogiraj Park, Near S.T. Workshop, Padadabhith Road,
Bhuj, Kutch, as well as an officer of RBL Bank, Mr.
Pratik Shah, Employee ID No. 02944, and other
officers/employees of RBL Bank, along with such
other persons as may be revealed during the course
of the investigation. Under the said conspiracy, in the
name of 119 farmers, with Bhadresh Trading
Corporation Ltd. acting as a guarantor, by portraying
Page 8 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
the farmers as members of The Abdasa Taluka
Dhiran Ane Bachat Mandali Ltd., providing false
savings account numbers of The Kutch District
Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Naliya, and by
furnishing false information of the farmers, forged
election cards, ration cards, as well as impersonating
the farmers by putting forward other individuals in
their place, false documentation was executed by the
bank employees and crop finance/loan was
sanctioned by the bank officer. Although it was
required to verify whether the loan amounts had
actually reached the respective farmers or not, the
same was not verified, thereby indirectly causing
wrongful financial gain to the accused persons. By
failing to repay the credit of Rs. 24,64,11,960/- back
to the bank, they caused all the accounts to turn into
NPA (Non-Performing Assets), misappropriated the
funds, utilized the same for personal use, thereby
committed the offences of cheating and criminal
breach of trust. Therefore, it is my complaint to
initiate a formal investigation against them in
accordance with the law under Sections 406, 409,
420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code, as well as Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. My witnesses are the
individuals whose names are mentioned in the
complaint, the farmers in whose names the loans
Page 9 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
were sanctioned, and those who may be revealed
during the course of the investigation, etc. A list
containing the names of the 119 farmers along with
their respective outstanding dues is produced
herewith.”
9 It emerges from the record that the applicant has
raised, inter alia, the following contentions:
(a) the applicant was never involved in the day-to-
day affairs or business of the company;
(b) she was appointed merely to comply with the
statutory requirement of appointing one woman
director under the Companies Act;
(c) she resigned from the Directorship on 07.03.2016
after following the due procedure prescribed under
law;
(d) the minutes of the Board Meetings do not bear
her signature and there is no material to indicate that
she participated in any meeting wherein any decision
was taken to forge documents or to use forged
documents. It is further submitted that merely
signing a resolution whereby the company resolved
to stand as a corporate guarantor for the loans
sanctioned to farmers, assuming the same to be
correct, is by itself legally permissible and does not
constitute any criminal offence;
Page 10 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
(e) the applicant has not signed the guarantee deed
produced before the Bank at the time of availing the
loan facility for the farmers; and
(f) the money trail does not disclose even an iota of
evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged
transactions and, therefore, the essential ingredients
of the offences alleged are not satisfied.
10As against the aforesaid contentions, if the reasons
assigned by the learned trial Court while rejecting the
discharge application are examined, it transpires that
from paragraph 10 onwards the learned trial Court
has merely reproduced the narration of the charge-
sheet. In paragraph 11, though reference is made to
the money trail indicating that an amount of
Rs.29,94,330,560/- pertaining to the loan accounts of
119 farmers was credited in the account of KDC Bank
maintained with SBI, Naliya, and thereafter
transferred to the Abdasa Taluka Savings Account
and subsequently through Arpit International to the
account of BTCL, the material collected during the
course of investigation itself indicates that
immediately upon receipt of the said amount, it was
transferred from the account of BTCL to Arpit
International on 19/20.03.2013, i.e. within three days
of its receipt.
10.1 In paragraph 12, the learned trial Court has
Page 11 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
merely observed that the present applicant was a
Director of BTCL, where the amount had been
transferred, and thereafter proceeded to narrate
the role attributed to all the accused collectively.
In paragraph 15, the learned trial Court has further
observed that, while rejecting a discharge
application, it is not necessary to assign reasons
and that detailed reasons are required only when
an application for discharge is allowed. Except
reproducing the allegations contained in the
charge-sheet and making general observations
against all the accused, the learned trial Court has
failed to assign some reason demonstrating the
prima facie involvement of the present applicant.
10.2 The question, therefore, which arises for
consideration is whether the view taken by the
learned trial Court that no reasons are required to
be assigned while rejecting a discharge application
is legally sustainable and whether an order
rejecting discharge can be passed without proper
application of judicial mind to the material
available against the concerned accused.
11This Court has referred the decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai v.
State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal
No. 472 of 2021 wherein the Apex Court has held as
Page 12 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
under:
“14. Since, the provision of Section 227 of Cr. P.C.
itself mandates that the trial court shall consider that
whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused or not and if trial court reaches to the
conclusion that there is no sufficient ground, the
accused shall be discharged. Section 227 of Cr. P.C. is
extracted hereinunder:–
“227.If, upon consideration of the record of the case
and the documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing 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.”
15. Having at a glace of the aforesaid provisions, it is
crystal clear that while passing an order in abovesaid
provisions, the trial court shall consider;- First, the
record of the case and documents submitted therewith;
Secondly submissions of the accused and thirdly the
submisisons of the prosecution.
16. It is settled law that even after such considerations,
two view are possible and if one of them gives rise to
the suspicion, which is distinguished from grave
suspicion, the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the
accused without going into the question as to whether a
case for trial has been made out by the prosecution or
not.
17. This court is of considered opinion that after the
application of judicial mind on discharge, the trial
Judge shall enter into the next proceeding i.e. framing
of the Charge. It is prima-facie overt from the wordings
of Section 228 of Cr. P.C. i.e. “Framing of Charge” and
“if, after such consideration and hearing, as aforesaid”,
Page 13 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
the procedure of Section 227 of Cr. P.C. is of much
importance and that cannot be skipped by the trial
court. The intent of the legislature is very clear that the
procedure prescribed in Section 227 of Cr. P.C. for
discharge of the accused is in fact safeguard and rider
so that a person who has been alleged to commit an
offence, may not be harassed for facing trial
proceedings. Therefore, the application of mind as well
as assigning reasons for passing the order under section
227 of Cr. P.C. is of much importance, which has to
care of by the trial court. 18. Further it is also not
incumbent upon the accused that he must have moved
an application for discharge. Even in a situation that
there was no application for discharge moved, then it is
incumbent upon the trial court to decide it that whether
there is sufficient material available against the accused
so as to frame charges, but opportunity of hearing to
the accused at this stage is an essential condition.”
12 The Apex, in the case of Smt. Shila Devi v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine ALL
164 decided in application under Section 482, has
observed as under:
“12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, now I have to
see whether the order passed by the court below is
against law or whether the court below discussed merit
of the case by applying its mind. I have gone through
the judgment of lower court and there is no discussion
of the evidences on record and material which are
placed before the court below are not discussed. Once
the court below is forming opinion for deciding the
discharge application, it has to discuss the material of
the charge sheet available before him but bare perusal
of the order of the court below would indicate that case
laws has been discussed and the facts narrated by thePage 14 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
parties have been recorded but while taking the
decision courts below have not taken note of the facts
and material available on record. The said aspect is
dealt in various judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has held in State of Karanataka v.
Muniswamy (1997) 2 SCC 699 that court while deciding
discharge application has to record its reasons while
rejecting the discharge application perusal of record and
reasons to be recorded are must. Para 7 of the aforesaid
judgment is herein under:
“The second limb of Mr. Mookerjee’s argument is
that I any event the High Court could not take
upon itself the task of assessing or appreciating
the weight of material on the record in order to
find whether any charges could be legitimately
framed against the respondents. So long as there
is sme material on the record to connect the
accused with the crime, says the learned counsel,
the case must go on and the High Court has no
jurisdiction to put a precipitate or premature end
to the proceedings on the belief that the
prosecution is not lively to succeed. This, in our
opinion, is too broad a proposition to accept.
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2
of 1974, provides that:
“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, the shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons for so
doing.
This section is contained in Chapter XVII called “Trial
Before a Court of Session”. It is clear from the provision
that the record and hearing the parties he comes to the
conclusion, for reasons to be recorded, that there is not
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The
object of the provision which requires the Sessions Judge
to record his reasons is to enable the superior court toPage 15 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
examine the correctness of the reasons for which the
Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. The High
Court therefore is entitled to go into the reasons given by
the Sessions Judge in support of his order and to
determine for itself whether the order is justified by the
facts and circumstances of the case. Section 482 of New
Code, which corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of
1898, provides that:
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders
as may be necessary to give effect to any order under
this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court
is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends
of justice require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers,
both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a
salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding
ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled
object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the
material on which the structure of the prosecution rests
and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the
proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice
are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has
got to be administered according to laws made by the
legislature. The compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper realisation of the
object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save
the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice
between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible
to appreciate the width and contours of that salient
jurisdiction.”
13. Hon’ble Supreme Court has again discussed the scope of
227 and 228 Cr. P.C. in Sunil Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar in Crl.
Misc. Case No. 22050 of 1996 decided on 5.2.1997. Para 6 is
herein under:
Page 16 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
“From bare perusal and comparison of the aforesaid two
provisions it appears that while in the case of discharge
of an accused under Section 227 of the Code it is
obligatory for the Judge to record his reasons for doing
so. But while framing charge under Section 228 of the
Code the provision does not say in a very specific word
that the Court msut record reasons. Nevertheless Section
228 provides that while framing charge, the Court must
be of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence. In other words,
there must be valid reasons and foundation for framing
an opinion that the accused has committed an offence.”
14. The case decided by Allahabad High Court in Smt. Kalawati
v. State of U.P. decided on 11.7.1990 passed in Crl. Revision
No. 1012 of 1990 wherein it has been held that though the full
statements of the witnesses need not be discussed but prima
facie case should be briefly indicated. Para 3 is herein under:
“It is true that for determining prima facie case court need
not weigh or sift the evidence or make roving enquiry. It
need not give full statements of the witnesses. Evidently
for a judicial speaking order it is necessary that the
evidence constituting prima facie case should be briefly
indicated and should not be substituted by vague words
or by conclusion alone.”
15. The court has to see whether the material placed before the
court have been properly explained. If there are two views
emerging then the court has to examine discharge application
filed under Section 227 Cr. P.C. by discussing the evidences on
record and then forming the opinion to pass order on the
application. Both courts below have not discussed the evidences
and material available before them and reasons have not been
recorded. The order passed by the Sessions Court dated
16.3.2021 in Crl. Case No. 340 of 2019 (State v. Asha Rani) in
Crl. Revision No. 27 of 2020 and the judgment and order dated
21.9.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Chakia, District-
Chandauli are set-aside.”
Page 17 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
13 The object behind the statutory requirement of
recording reasons by the learned Sessions Judge is to
enable the superior Court to examine the correctness
and legality of the conclusion reached while
determining whether sufficient grounds exist for
proceeding against the accused. The principal
grievance of the present applicant is that there is no
material on record disclosing the commission of any
cognizable offence by her and that the learned trial
Court has rejected the discharge application in a
mechanical manner without examining the material
placed before it. It is well settled that, at the stage of
considering a discharge application, the Court is
required to undertake a prima facie evaluation of the
material on record to ascertain whether, if the
allegations are accepted at their face value, the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged are
disclosed against the accused. The order deciding the
discharge application must reflect due application of
judicial mind to the material available on record, and
an order rejecting such an application must be
founded upon cogent reasons demonstrating the
prima facie involvement of the accused in the alleged
offences.
14 This Court has also referred to the well-settled
decision of the Apex Court in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, wherein the Apex
Page 18 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
Court has laid down the principles governing the
scope and ambit of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, as under:
“17. On consideration of the authorities about the
scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following
principles emerge:-
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing
the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. 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 itsPage 19 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
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 Sections 227 and 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 discloses the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept
all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it
is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities
of the case.
vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise
to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,
the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the
accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the
trial will end in conviction or acquittal.”
15 In Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of
Gujarat and Another, reported in (2019) 16 SCC
547, the Apex Court has held that, at the stage of
framing of charge, the Court is not expected to act as
a mere post office. In accordance with the principles
governing Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Court is required to sift the
material produced and relied upon by the
prosecution. Such scrutiny, however, is not to be
meticulous as if the Court were conducting a full-
fledged trial or deciding whether the evidence is
sufficient to record a conviction. The only
Page 20 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
requirement is to ascertain whether, on the basis of
the material available, a prima facie case is made out
for the accused to stand trial. The Apex Court has
further held that a strong suspicion is sufficient for
framing of charge however, such strong suspicion
must be founded on some tangible material capable
of being translated into evidence during trial. It
cannot rest upon the subjective satisfaction or moral
conviction of the Court that the accused may have
committed the offence. The suspicion must arise
from material which reasonably persuades the Court
to form a prima facie view that the accused has
committed the alleged offence.
16 It is required to be noted that an order rejecting an
application for discharge under Section 239 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is a revisable order. It is
true that, while considering an application for
discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Court is neither required to conduct a
mini trial nor undertake a meticulous appreciation of
the material collected during the investigation,
including the police report and the documents
forwarded under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. It is equally well settled that, while
framing a charge, the trial Court is not required to
assign elaborate reasons.
Page 21 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
16.1 However, since an order rejecting an application
for discharge is amenable to revisional jurisdiction,
such an order must indicate, at least briefly, the
material which discloses the existence of a prima
facie case against the accused. In other words, the
order must reflect why the case cannot be said to
be “groundless”. A mere observation that a prima
facie case exists or that the case is not groundless,
without referring to the material supporting such
conclusion, would not be sufficient to reject an
application for discharge. It cannot be overlooked
that reasons are the hallmark of every judicial
order. An order rejecting a discharge application
must, therefore, disclose at least brief reasons
indicating why the material on record justifies the
accused being put to trial.
16.2 It is equally settled that, though a strong
suspicion against the accused cannot take the
place of proof required for conviction at the
conclusion of the trial, at the initial stage, if the
material on record gives rise to a strong suspicion
leading the Court to presume that the accused has
committed the alleged offence, the Court would
not be justified in holding that there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
Conversely, where there is no incriminating
material connecting the accused with the alleged
Page 22 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
offence, the charge would be groundless. At the
same time, mere conjectures or vague suspicion,
unsupported by any tangible material, cannot
constitute sufficient ground for framing a charge.
17 A careful reading of the impugned order passed by
the learned trial Court rejecting the discharge
application reveals that there is no discussion with
regard to the specific allegations levelled against the
present applicant, nor has the learned trial Court
assigned any reason demonstrating how a prima
facie suspicion arises against the applicant in the
commission of the alleged offences. The learned trial
Court was required to sift the material collected
during the course of investigation, which now forms
part of the charge-sheet, and satisfy itself whether
sufficient material exists to put the present applicant
to trial. While considering an application for
discharge, the Court is required to ascertain whether
the material on record discloses a prima facie case
warranting a trial. As discussed hereinabove, though
a strong suspicion is sufficient at this stage, such
suspicion must be founded on tangible material
capable of being translated into evidence during the
course of trial.
17.1 In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of
the considered view that the impugned order
Page 23 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
passed by the learned trial Court cannot be
sustained and deserves to be quashed and set
aside. The matter is accordingly required to be
remanded to the learned Sessions Court for fresh
consideration of the discharge application in
accordance with law and on its own merits.
18. Resultantly, the present application is allowed. The
order passed by the learned trial Court below Exhibit
108 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter
is remanded back to the learned Sessions Court,
Kachchh at Bhuj. Consequently, the discharge
application preferred below Exhibit 108 stands
restored to the file of the learned trial Court. The
learned trial Court shall consider and decide the said
discharge application afresh, in accordance with law
and on its own merits, without being influenced by
the observations made in the impugned order or in
the present order.
19It is clarified that the observations made herein are
confined only to the adjudication of the present
application. The learned trial Court shall decide the
discharge application independently and
uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
Since the Special (ACB) Case is of the year 2020, the
learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to
decide the discharge application as expeditiously as
Page 24 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/726/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
possible, preferably within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of this order.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
Page 25 of 25
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 23:26:57 IST 2026
