JUDGMENT : 1. The second respondent personally present before the court along with her mother. Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.1 - State. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent State as well as the second respondent, who is personally present before the court. Perused the records. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to argue the matter on the discharge application filed by him. Secondly, it is contended that the learned trial Judge has not even looked into the materials on record and also the grounds urged in the application while disposing of the petition u/s.227 of Cr.P.C. 4. Per contra, the second respondent who is present before the court submitted that earlier, the accused counsel has argued the matter before the previous judge and thereafter, accused remained absent before the court and even before disposal of the discharge application, arguments were heard by the learned Judge. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in the order impugned in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have carefully perused the order-sheet of the trial Court. It is quiet relevant to note here that on 25.9.2017, just prior to one day of the passing of the order on the application u/s.227 of Cr.P.C., the learned Judge has noted that the "Accused absent. E.P. filed. Accused counsel prays time to hear on discharge application calling, accused absent alleged discharge even after sufficient time granted finally for arguments on discharge application call on 26.9.2017." 6. On 26.9.2017, there is no material or the observation by the trial Judge that whether the accused and counsel were present, any arguments were submitted by the counsel or any written arguments were submitted whether the trial Court has gone through the said written arguments and passed the order impugned under the petition. 7. The order discloses that the trial Court has disposed of the application even without expressing any materials on record except stating that the prosecutrix is an adult aged 26 years and there is a DNA report shows that the accused is the biological father of the child of the prosecutrix. Except these two sentences, nothing has been looked into by the trial Court while passing the order on the discharge application. Except these two sentences, nothing has been looked into by the trial Court while passing the order on the discharge application. When an application is filed for discharge, it is incumbent upon the court to follow the procedure contemplated u/s.227 of Cr.P.C.. 8. It is seen from the said provision which clearly enumerates that - "If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing." Therefore, it is incumbent upon the court to consider the entire records of the case and the documents produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, then only the court has to pass appropriate order considering whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused if so, the court can frame charges for specific offences and proceed with the case, otherwise the court has to discharge the accused. 9. In this context, it is worth to mention here a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 663 , between P. Vijayan and State of Kerala wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus: "The Judge should not be a mere Post Office to frame the charges, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold, the nature of the evidence recorded by the Police or the documents produced before the court which ex-facie disclosed that there was suspicious circumstances against the accused" Therefore, if the above said principles are applied to this particular case, neither the factual aspects of the case have been considered by the trial court nor the entire materials placed before the court by the prosecution and thereafter, recorded its opinion, whether there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused or not. Therefore, the order is very cryptic in nature and bereft of reasons and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside remitting the application u/s.227 of Cr.P.C. to the trial Court with a direction for re-consideration after looking into the materials on record and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law on the said application in the light of the observations made in the body of this order. Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of. The trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the said application filed u/s.227of Cr.P.C. as expeditiously as possible or within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of disposal of the petition, pending consideration of IA No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.