JUDGMENT : 1. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 17.1.2013. The order aforesaid is composite one, whereby the learned trial court has not only taken cognizance against the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC but also framed charges under the aforesaid offences. 2. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the extent of order framing charge citing the judgement of Supreme Court in Notified Area Committee vs. Additional Director, Consolidation & Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 87 . 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned order framing charge does not reflect application of mind. Neither the facts have been noticed, nor the prima facie evidence on which the charges are sought to be founded is narrated. All that has been mentioned is that after hearing the arguments on charge, charges were separately framed for offence u/s.420, 467 and 468 of IPC and were read over to the accused. Learned counsel submitted that the reasons are the flesh and blood of judicial adjudication and such reasons must be evident from the orders, which are liable to be challenged in the superior court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and argued that the order framing charge and articles of charge may be read conjointly so as to understand the facts of the case. In the article of charges, the facts have been stated in the way that the petitioner prepared a forged document and thereby committed offence u/s.420 IPC for providing undue benefits to one Malkhan Meena. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. Even though the articles of charges do contain the precise allegation against the accused, but the order framing charge is completely silent thereabout. It is indeed necessary for any judicial court to disclose its mind by written words as to why it has decided to pass the order in the way it has done. Reasons are hallmark of any judicial discourse. Reasons are necessary not only for the litigant to know as to why the order has been passed against or in his favour, but also for the superior courts to appreciate the order if and when it is challenged in appeal/revision. Reasons are hallmark of any judicial discourse. Reasons are necessary not only for the litigant to know as to why the order has been passed against or in his favour, but also for the superior courts to appreciate the order if and when it is challenged in appeal/revision. The learned trial court in the impugned order in one para running hardly into six lines, not only took the cognizance against the accused, but also decided to frame charge against him for offence 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. Neither facts of the case have been noticed, nor any reasons have been given therein. 7. Although it needs no mention that at the stage of framing charge, the Court is not supposed to make fishing or roving enquiry. The trial court at that stage need not go deep into details. But then, it is duty obliged to examine whether the material on record makes out a prima facie case against the accused for the alleged offences. In order however to do that the basic facts should be stated in the order framing charge so that it can be discerned therefrom as to which offence is attracted in those facts and why charges for such offence have been framed. 8. In view of above, though the impugned order dated 17.1.2013 is not interfered with to the extent it has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, but later part of the order, whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for framing charges afresh after hearing the arguments of the petitioner by reasoned order. 9. The petition is accordingly allowed. Stay application also stands disposed of.