1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 16.08.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate Gunnaur District Sambhal arising out of Case Crime No. 466 of 2016 under Section 420 I.P.C. , P.S. Rajpura, District Sambhal pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Sambhal. It is further prayed to stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that pursuant to order dated 28.08.2019 passed in application under Section 482 No. 25076 of 2019, the applicant moved an application for discharge before the trial court making specific averments. The trial court vide its order dated 16.08.2019 has rejected the application for discharge merely considering the material available in Case Diary. The trial court has completely ignored the grounds taken by the applicant in his discharge application. The applicant specifically averred that applicant was in possession of transferable land having Gata No. 995 measuring 645H in village Gavan District Sambhal. The applicant on 28.06.2016 sold some part of the land measuring 136.5 Square meter through informant, namely, Vinay Kumar through sale deed with certain bounds on 01.07.2016 out of the aforesaid land.

4. The applicant executed second sale deed in favour of Kali Charan measuring 170.5 Square Meter, therefore, the plots sold by the applicant are different and no fraud has been committed by the applicant with the informant of the case. Therefore, the entire prosecution story is not reliable. It is next submitted that after execution the sale deed land measuring 868 Square Metre remains with the applicant. The applicant filed a Civil Suit against the informant title as Vinay Kumar Vs. Kali charan for temporary injunction in which he had admitted that boundaries mentioned in both the sale deeds are different. Therefore, no offence was made out against the applicant. Lastly, in support of his argument learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon paragraph No. 7 of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1695 of 2009 (Md. Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another) passed on 4.9.2009.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that prima facie all the issues have been taken into consideration at the time of disposal of the discharge application moved by the applicant.

"11. Section 239 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

" If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing."

12. The Hon'ble Apex court in Kanchan Kumar vs. State of Bihar 2022 (9) SCC577 has summarised the principles to be followed while dealing with the application for discharge made by the accused. The Hon'ble Court opined:-

"13. The threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., is to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record, including examination of any infirmities appearing in the case. In Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), it was noted that:

"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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.

(2) 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.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced 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 appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." (emphasis supplied)

14. In Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation10, the Court cautioned against accepting every document produced by the prosecution on face value, and noted that it was important to sift the evidence produced before the Court. It observed that:

"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: ...

(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 its 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 10 (2010) 9 SCC 368 [LQ/SC/2010/998] .

documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose 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..." (emphasis supplied)

15. Summarising the principles on discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C, in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat,11 this Court recapitulated:

"23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a fullfledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at 11 (2019) 16 SCC 547 [LQ/SC/2019/759] .

the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that the accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence." (emphasis supplied)

16.1 Analysis: Without getting into too many details, we consider it to be appropriate and in fact sufficient to confine our inquiry to three heads of expenditure indicated in the charge sheet itself. This limited inquiry will also satisfy the requirements of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C."

13. In view of the above observation, it is obvious that since the Magistrate is at the stage of deciding whether or not there exists sufficient ground for framing the charge, his enquiry must necessarily be limited to decide if the fact emerging from the record and documents constitute the offence with which the accused is charged. At this stage, he may sift through the evidence for that limited purpose but he is not required to marshal the evidence with a view to separate the grain from the chaff. All that he is called to consider is whether there is sufficient ground to frame the charge and for this limited purpose he must weigh the material on record as well as the documents relied on by the prosecution."

6. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the trial court reflects that the grounds taken by the applicant in his discharge application has not been considered by the court while passing the impugned order. However, it is expected from the court concerned that it would look into the grounds taken by the applicants in his application and pass a suitable order after taking into account the specific grounds taken by the applicant in his discharge application in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by a speaking and well reasoned order.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the present application stands disposed of.