JUDGMENT 1. - Since both these revision petitions arise out of common order dated 23.06.2012, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State as well as Mr. Banwari Lal Agarwal, Complainant and father of the deceased Bharat Bhushan, who is present in person and perused impugned order dated 23.06.2012 and the relevant documents placed on record by the parties. 3. Both these revision petitions are directed against order dated 23.06.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 1, Bharatpur(hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) in Sessions Case No. 6/2012, whereby the learned Trial Court has framed charges against the accused-petitioners and others under Sections 302/120B IPC. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Banwari Lal Agarwal lodged an F.I.R. about an alleged incident, which took place in the night of 13th-14th December, 1996, wherein his son, Bharat Bhushan was found injured on the road in suspicious condition. The Complainant stated in his report that on 12.12.1996, his son Bharat Bhushan (deceased) came to Bharatpur from Mathura to participate in a marriage. On 13.12.1996, at around 1.00 PM, he was to proceed to Gwalior. At that time, one Lokesh son of Om Prakash(co-accused) came on the scooter to drop him at the bus stand. Accordingly, Bharat Bhushan(deceased) went with Lokesh. In the mid night of 13th-14th December, 1996 at around 1.00 AM, mother of Lokesh, Ms. Pawan and his brother came to the complainants house informing that Lokesh and Bharat Bhushan met with an accident near Chiksana. Bharat Bhushan was then taken to the hospital, where he died on 18.12.1996. The FIR was lodged showing it to be death under suspicious conditions and as an outcome of criminal conspiracy. The police registered FIR No. 243/1996 at Police Station Chiksana. After investigation in FIR No. 243/1996, charge sheet was filed for offence under sections 304-A and 279 IPC along with section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act against the accused Lokesh and Veerpal. Another FIR bearing No. 636/1996 was lodged by the Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur at the instance of present accused-petitioner Prashant Khandelwal S/o. Jai Kishan on 14.12.1996 at 9.30 AM, alleging theft of scooter bearing No. RJ 05 M 9698. Another FIR bearing No. 636/1996 was lodged by the Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur at the instance of present accused-petitioner Prashant Khandelwal S/o. Jai Kishan on 14.12.1996 at 9.30 AM, alleging theft of scooter bearing No. RJ 05 M 9698. After investigation therein, charge sheet was filed against Lokesh(co-accused, who is absconding in this case till now) for offence under section 379 IPC. Complainant Banwari Lal thereafter submitted a complaint on 27.03.1998 alleging therein inter alia that on 13.12.1996, while his son Bharat Bhushan was going to attend his college at Gwalior, accused Lokesh Thakur came to his house and told him that he would drop his son at the bus stand and thereafter both proceeded at about 1.00 A.M. Thereafter, at about 12.30 P.M. at night the brother and the mother of Lokesh namely Ms. Pawan came to his house and told him that Lokesh and Bharat Bhushan met with accident near Chiksana and also stated that upon hearing about the incident, he telephonically informed his friend Tej Singh and he rushed to the spot with Ms. Pawan and Tej Singh. On the arrival at the place of incident at about 2.30 A.M., he saw his son namely Bharat Bhushan lying injured on the road and the scooter was also lying there. Thereafter his son Bharat Bhushan passed away on 18.12.1996. It was stated by the Complainant Banwari Lal that an F.I.R. No. 636/1996 was registered for offence under Section 379 IPC on 14.121996 by Prashant Khandelwal stating therein that his scooter had been stolen from his house at about 1.00 A.M. It was further alleged in the complainant that the same scooter was used by the accused Lokesh on 13.12.1996. Thus, all accused persons allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy and tried to give the incident a shape of accident after the murder of his son Bharat Bhushan and they also destroyed the evidence of the offence. It was also stated that an F.I.R. No. 243/1996 was registered by the Complainant at Police Station Chiksana, but the Investigating Officer acted in connivance wit the accused-persons and registered said FIR for offence under Section 304A IPC etc. Thereafter, learned Magistrate enquired the matter and recorded the statement of the Complainant Banwari Lal under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and got examined witnesses namely Tej Singh, Neeraj, Raj Kumar Agarwal, Vasudev Prasad, Sunil Kumar, Indra Bhushan, Shripal Singh and Dr. Thereafter, learned Magistrate enquired the matter and recorded the statement of the Complainant Banwari Lal under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and got examined witnesses namely Tej Singh, Neeraj, Raj Kumar Agarwal, Vasudev Prasad, Sunil Kumar, Indra Bhushan, Shripal Singh and Dr. Ashok Mundada under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned Magistrate passed an order dated 19.04.2007 and took cognizance against the accused persons namely Lokesh, Prashant Khandelwal, Jai Kishan Khandelwal for offences under Sections 302, 120B IPC; Dhanesh Chand under Sections 120B and 201 IPC. The petitioners challenged order dated 19.04.2007 by way of a criminal revision petition and on rejection of the said criminal revision, a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was also filed by the petitioners before this Court, which was also dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2011. Thereafter, learned Trial Court heard the learned counsel for the parties on charge and passed the impugned order for framing charge against the accused-petitioners and other accused-persons. Co-accused Dhanesh Sharma also filed separate revision petition before this Court, which was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2012 and the impugned order was set aside qua the petitioner Dhanesh and the case was remanded to the Trial Court to re-hear the prosecution and the accused-petitioner for passing proper and reasoned order in the light of observations made in that matter. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.06.2012 passed by the Trial Court, these both revision petitions have been filed by the accused-petitioners. 5. Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners Jai Kishan Khandelwal and Prashant Khandelwal vehemently submitted that order passed by the Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures. If all evidence is taken together, no case is made out against the accused-petitioners Jai Kishan and Prashant Khandelwal under Sections 302, 120B IPC. He further submitted that impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is patently illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law as also the material available on record. Learned Court below has seriously erred in passing the impugned order because there was no legal evidence to connect the accused-petitioners with the alleged criminal conspiracy so as to justify the charge for the said offence against the petitioners. Learned Court below has seriously erred in passing the impugned order because there was no legal evidence to connect the accused-petitioners with the alleged criminal conspiracy so as to justify the charge for the said offence against the petitioners. Statements of witnesses relied upon by learned Trial Court are afterthought and not supported even by the complaint filed by the complainant Banwari Lal dated 27.04.1998. There is no material available on record; nor there is apparent any iota of evidence to show that there was any prior meeting of minds between the petitioners and the other accused persons regarding the alleged murder. As such, there is no element of criminal conspiracy against the petitioners, even prima facie, as there is no evidence to show that there was any meeting of the accused-petitioners with Lokesh, who was charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 379 and 304A IPC in F.I.R. No. 636/1996 and 243/1996 respectively. He further submitted that the order framing a charge effects a persons liberty substantially and, therefore, it is the duty of the Court to consider judiciously whether the material warrants framing of charges or not and it cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution or the complainant that the accused be asked to face the trial. He has also submitted that framing of charge on the premise that cognizance has been taken is not enough because framing of charge is judicial act and mere taking of cognizance does not make it obligatory to frame charge. Essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, but in this case there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused-petitioners. Impugned order is not reasoned and speaking order and thus, not sustainable in the eyes of law. For criminal conspiracy, there should be an agreement between two or more persons, the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either an illegal act or an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. Thus, it is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy and these ingredients are missing in this case. Thus, it is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy and these ingredients are missing in this case. So, Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court may be quashed and set aside and the accused-petitioners may be discharged. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments delivered in the cases of Kola Ram and another v. The State of Rajasthan, 1994 Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 401 ; Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512 ; Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394 ; Brindaban Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, 2009(3) Criminal Court Cases 104(S.C.) ; R.S. Mishra v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2011 AIAR(Criminal) 282 ; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya And Others, (1990) 4 SCC 76 ; State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy And Others; (1977) 2 SCC 699 ; Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1921 . 6. Mr. Nikhlesh Katara, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner Veerpal in addition to above arguments, submitted that learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law as well as fact in framing charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 302 and 120B IPC because from the bare perusal of the FIR as well as from the evidence which has come on record during investigation or enquiry, no offence as alleged is made out against the accused-petitioner Veerpal. There is no evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. There is no evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. He has further submitted that on the basis of report submitted by the complainant Banwari Lal on 22.12.1996, FIR No. 243/1996 was registered and after investigation, police has submitted charge sheet for the offence under Sections 304A, 379 IPC along with Section 185 Motor Vehicle Act and learned Court below after hearing arguments of parties read over the substances of charge against the accused-petitioner and co-accused Lokesh and thereafter, regarding the same incident, complainant Banwari Lal submitted a criminal complaint before the learned Magistrate, wherein allegations were made for commission of offence under Sections 302, 120B, 109 and 214 IPC and cognizance was taken, but no cognizance of offence was taken against the present accused-petitioner. So, there is no evidence available on record to connect the accused-petitioner with the alleged crime and impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. So, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner Veerpal has also prayed to allow the revision petition and quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court and to discharge the accused-petitioner. 7. . Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State left the matter to the discretion of the Court. 8. On the other hand, the Complainant Banwari Lal, who is present in person, vehemently defended the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and submitted that the same is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence available on record. He has also submitted that by the detailed order Revisional Court has justified the cognizance order passed by the Court below and thereafter, in criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also affirmed the order of cognizance passed by the Court below and as per law, no reasons are required to be recorded when charges are to be framed against the accused-persons. There is no necessity to pass detailed order at every stage, because the Court below, thereafter Revisional Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court have passed the detailed orders about the cognizance. He has also submitted that without giving opportunity of hearing learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order dated 11.09.2012, remanding the case of Dhanesh Chand Sharma. He has also submitted that without giving opportunity of hearing learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order dated 11.09.2012, remanding the case of Dhanesh Chand Sharma. He has vehemently submitted that there is no need to give reasons while passing the order framing the charges. He has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case it is proved that a case for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC has been converted into a case for commission of offence under Sections 304A and 279 IPC with active connivance of the police officers and learned Magistrate as well as Trial Court have looked into the matter minutely and based on facts, order of cognizance has been passed and thereafter, impugned order has been passed, which is also reasoned order. He has further submitted that on 13.12.1996, his son deceased Bharat Bhushan left his house at 1.00 P.M. with co-accused Lokesh. At around 12.30 A.M. on 13th-14th December, 1996, mother of Lokesh and his brother came reporting a case of accident of Lokesh and Bharat Bhushan near village Chiksana, which is little away from Bharatpur. In the accident, Lokesh allegedly driving the scooter sustained no injury. In view of evidence available deceased Bharat Bhushan received injuries by blunt object. In the statement of Dr. B.L. Meena, he ruled out the case of accident for the reasons given. Another F.I.R. No. 636/1996 at Police Station Mathuragate, Bharatpur was lodged for theft of same scooter. It was at the instance of accused-petitioner Prashant Khandelwal, but during investigation, his father stated that Prashant Khandelwal returned from hospital at around 10.00 P.M. on 13.12.1996, after visiting some one in hospital and parked his scooter thereupon. Then, it was stolen at around 1.00 A.M. of night of 13th-14th December, 1996. The allegation of theft of scooter was made on co-accused Lokesh, who is also his neighbour. It is a fact that as per statement of accused-petitioner Veerpal and also bus conductor Shatrapal Singh, Lokesh and Bharat Bhushan were seen going towards Chiksana at about 8.45 P.M. on 13.12.1996 and as per evidence, accident took place at around 9.00 P.M. on 13.12.1996. So, FIR of theft of scooter was nothing, but an effort to over come with the conspiracy of murder of Bharat Bhushan. It is also admitted fact that Lokesh has been acquitted of the theft case. So, FIR of theft of scooter was nothing, but an effort to over come with the conspiracy of murder of Bharat Bhushan. It is also admitted fact that Lokesh has been acquitted of the theft case. The complainant Banwari Lal has submitted that the theft case was found to be false and this shows false story of accident cooked by the accused-petitioners and others to convert a case of offence under Section 302 IPC to a case of accident. He has further submitted that deceased Bharat Bhushan alleged to have love affairs with Minakshi, daughter of accused-petitioner Jai Kishan and sister of accused-petitioner Prashant. Since Bharat Bhushan was adamant to marry with Minakshi, accused-petitioners threatened him for dire consequences. So, Bharat Bhushan was murdered and the matter was covered up showing it to be a case of accident. He has also submitted that strong suspicion is sufficient for framing charge and in this case, there is strong suspicion against the accused persons for the offence of murder with hatching of criminal conspiracy. 9. So, Bharat Bhushan was murdered and the matter was covered up showing it to be a case of accident. He has also submitted that strong suspicion is sufficient for framing charge and in this case, there is strong suspicion against the accused persons for the offence of murder with hatching of criminal conspiracy. 9. The learned Trial Court, while passing impugned order, has observed as under: " 18- bl izdkj bl izdj.k esa mijksDr leLr lk{; ds fo'ys"k.k ,oa foospu ls ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd vfHk;qDr yksds'k e`rd Hkkjr Hkw"k.k dks cl esa fcBkus ds fy;s ?kj ls cqykdj yk;k FkkA ysfdu ml fnu og Xokfy;j ds fy;s cl esa ugha fcBk ik;k vkSj jkf= 9 cts og nq?kZVukxzLr gks x;kA vius fe= e`rd Hkkjr Hkw"k.k dks nq?kZVukxzLr gksrs gq, og ekSds ls mls NksM+dj Hkkx x;kA bl izdj.k esa ;g vR;Ur mYys[kuh; gS fd fiNyh lokjh bl nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q dks izkIr gq;h gS tcfd pkyd yksds'k ds 'kjhj ij dksbZ Hkh pksV ugha ik;h x;h gSA dfFkr nq?kZVuk 9 cts ds yxHkx dh crk;h x;h gS tcfd iz'kkar [k.Msyoky us bl nq?kZVuk esa iz;qDr LdwVj dh pksjh dh fjiksVZ bl nq?kZVuk ds dkQh le; ckn ntZ djk;h gS vkSj mldk dksbZ Li"V dkj.k Hkh ugha crk;k x;k gSA izdj.k esa tks lk{; vk;h gS mlds vuqlkj uhjt o lquhy tSu us iz'kkar dsh cgu ehuk{kh mQZ feuh [k.Msyoky o vfHk;qDr t;fd'ku dh iq=h dk e`rd Hkkjr Hkw"k.k ls izse lEcU/k gksuk crk;k gS vkSj blh dks ysdj pwafd os nksuksa 'kknh djus ds fy;s izfrc) Fks] iz'kkar [k.Msyoky }kjk mls /kedh nsuk o e`rd Hkkjr Hkw"k.k ds 'kjhj ij pksV gksuk ,sls rF; gS ftlds vUrxZr muds fo:) dk;Zokgh fd, tkus ds i;kZIr vk/kkj gSA 30- mijksDr leLr foospu] lk{; ,oa rdksZa ds foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds mijkUr ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k t;fd'ku] iz'kkar o ohjiky ds fo:) /kkjk 302@120ch Hkk0na0la0 o vfHk;qDr /kus'k pan ds fo:) /kkjk 302@120ch o 201 Hkk0na0la esa dk;Zokgh djus ds i;kZIr vk/kkj gS vr% mudks bu /kkjkvksa ls mUeksfpr fd;k tkuk fdlh izdkj ls U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA vfHk;qDrx.k t;fd'ku] iz'kkar o ohjiky ds fo:) /kkjk 302@120ch Hkk0na0la0 o vfHk;qDr /kus'k pan ds fo:) /kkjk 302@120ch o 201 Hkk0n0la0 esa vkjksi fojfpr fd, tkus ds izFke n`"Vrk i;kZIr vk/kkj gS vr% vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) rnkuqlkj vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkosA " 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence available on record, this Court finds that learned Trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the accused-petitioners under Sections 302 and 120B IPC. Learned Trial Court appears to have committed no error in framing the said charges against the accused-petitioners on the basis of material available before it. It is true that strong suspicion is enough for framing charges. It is also true that there is no legal requirement that the Trial Court should write order showing the reasons for framing charge, there is no need to overburden already burdened trial courts with said extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court proceedings and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If the lower court is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. A detailed order may be passed for culminating the proceedings before them, but it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah And Another v. State of W.B., (2000) 1 SCC 722 clearly observed that no reasons are required to be recorded when charges to be framed against an accused. Reasons are required to be recorded only when accused is to be discharged. So, in this case, learned Trial Court has passed a detailed order and in above view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court there is no need to give detailed reasons. So, to maintain the judicial discipline, I restrain myself from commenting on remand order dated 11.09.2012 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Revision Petition No. 690/2012, but in the interest of justice, learned Trial Court is directed to pass the order in accordance with law expeditiously and I need not remand the case on the basis that in another revision petition Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Trial Court to re-hear the prosecution and the accused and to pass fresh reasoned and speaking order. 11. 11. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the material produced by the prosecution is sufficient or not for conviction of the accused. If the Court satisfies that prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed. If there are grounds for prima facie believing that the accused have committed an offence, the Court shall frame the charges against him. 12. In the present case, sufficient evidence is available on record which suggests that the offences under Sections 302 and 120B IPC are made out against the petitioners and further, there are grounds for reasonably believing that the accused-petitioners have committed the alleged offences. 13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena, (1996) 11 SCC 439 has observed that time and again this Court has pointed that at the stage of framing charge, the Court should not enter upon a process of evaluating the evidence by deciding its worth or credibility. The limited exercise during that stage is to find out whether the materials offered by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence are sufficient for the Court to proceed further. In my opinion the ratio of the decisions, on which learned counsel Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners Jai Kishan Khandelwal and Prashant Khandelwal has placed reliance, has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court seems to be perfectly just and proper as well as based on cogent and sound reasons and this Court finds no illegality in the same, which calls for any interference in the present revision petitions. 15. Consequently, both the revision petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. All the interim applications as well as stay applications pending in both the revision petitions are disposed of. 16. Since, the present case is hanging fire since 1996, therefore, learned Trial Court is further directed to conclude the trial in the present case expeditiously. 17. Office is directed to place a copy of this Order on record in connected revision petition.Revision dismissed. *******