IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2816 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: October 17, 2011 Hardev Singh & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. The petitioners have been charged for commission of offence under Section 395 IPC viz. for committing dacoity. 2. Order of charge dated 7.9.2010 reads as under:- “Present: As before Charge under Section 395 r.w.s. 395 I.P.C. has been framed against the accused and the same has been read over and explained to them in their own language to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Now PWs be summoned for 12.10.2010.” Criminal Revision No.2816 of 2010 [2] 3. The order does not even show that the petitioners were heard before framing of charge. The ingredients of dacoity as defined under Section 391 IPC, in the context of material collected during investigation have not been considered. 4. The order framing charge and chargesheet seriously affects the rights of not only the person charged but also the family because serious allegations against such person(s) are shown to be prima facie established and calls for them to stand trial. Since order is totally non-speaking and without hearing, the order is rendered illegal and therefore, is liable to be set aside. 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 6. Impugned order dated 7.9.2010 and consequent chargesheet are hereby quashed, with directions to the Trial Court to consider the material filed by the investigating agency, in context of Sections 391 and 395 IPC, and thereafter, pass a reasoned and speaking order in context of role of each of the accused. (AJAI LAMBA) October 17, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?