JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagur in revision whereby the Revisional Court has affirmed the order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Case No. 150/1991 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 166, 167, 465, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the trial Court proceedings are being undertaken as a warrant case instituted on a complaint. He submits that after the pre-charge evidence was led by the complainant, detailed arguments on the question of charge were advanced by the accused against the proposed charges, the learned Magistrate, however, without even referring to the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused in a mechanical fashion directed framing of charges against the accused. He further submits that the Revisional Court also did not consider the merits of the case and in a conjectural fashion rejected the revision. He submits that the same dispute which is a subject matter of lie between the parties in the instant complaint is also challenged in Writ Petition No. 6062/2003 filed before this Court. Learned counsel thus submits that ex facie none of the offences for which the charges have been framed against the petitioner are prima facie made out from the record. He thus, prays that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. None appears for the respondent No. 2 despite service. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned and the record. 6. From a perusal of the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has directed framing of charges against the accused in absolutely mechanical fashion without dealing with the specific arguments seeking discharge advanced on behalf of the accused. The learned Magistrate was required to refer to those arguments and deal with the same before proposing to frame charges against the accused. The Revisional Court has also dismissed the revision in a mechanical fashion. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the order framing charge against the petitioners amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 7. The learned Magistrate was required to refer to those arguments and deal with the same before proposing to frame charges against the accused. The Revisional Court has also dismissed the revision in a mechanical fashion. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the order framing charge against the petitioners amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The orders impugned passed by the Courts below are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to pass fresh reasoned order on the question of charges after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The record be sent back to the trial Court. The file of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6062/2003 shall be detached from the instant miscellaneous petition.Petition allowed. *******