ORDER : 1. Notice to be issued to respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. 2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 5473/12 pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Though the petitioner has sought for quashing of the entire proceedings but at the time of submitting the arguments, the learned counsel confined himself to the order passed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.02.2017 on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and refusing to discharge the accused for the above said offences. 3. After hearing both the counsel and after perusal of the entire materials on record this Court has to find out as to (i) whether the order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and procedure and (ii) whether the accused has made out any grounds for setting aside the said order. 4. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, in the said criminal case accused Nos.1 and 2 with common intention to make wrongful gain for themselves and to cheat the complainant and other public at large have illegally opened some offices in the name and style of M/s Presidency Group & Aishwarya Projects at No. 895/1, Skanda, 14th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore and also at different places. They in turn gave the paper advertisements offering the public for allotting THEM sites at various places in various residential layouts alleged to have been formed by them. Accordingly, CWs 11 to 89 and other public after seeing the said advertisement have approached accused No. 1 and in turn, Accused Nos. 1 & 2 have collected huge amounts from them but thereafter, failed to convert any agricultural lands into nonagricultural lands and made any efforts to convert them into sites etc. It is also alleged that accused Nos.3 to 17 have invested their amount in the aforesaid projects of accused Nos.1 and 2 and they also indulged in making wrongful gain for themselves at the cost of the public at large. It is also alleged that accused Nos.3 to 17 have invested their amount in the aforesaid projects of accused Nos.1 and 2 and they also indulged in making wrongful gain for themselves at the cost of the public at large. Accused Nos.18 and 19 have received some amounts from accused Nos.1 and 2 with an assurance that they would provide some lands for the projects of accused Nos.1 and 2 but they have failed to provide the lands to them even in spite of receiving the amount from accused Nos.1 and 2. On these allegations, the police have investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet. 5. During the course of proceedings before the trial Court, this petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 19 filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court has rejected the said application along with the applications of other accused persons precisely the applications filed by accused Nos. 3, 11, 5, 9, 14, 18 & 19. Upto paragraph 14, the trial Court has extracted the arguments submitted by the learned counsel and the documents and also the decisions relied upon by them. The court also extracted Section 239 of Cr.P.C and also reminded itself what the Court has to do under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. At para 15, it has expressed its opinion with regard to the petitioner herein and others. The Court has come to a conclusion that, if there is any strong suspicion and prima facie material is available, then charge can be framed. At para 15, the Court has simply observed that the persons who have filed the applications under Section 239 of Cr.P.C have contended that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution but the prosecution has contended that from the records prima facie it appears all the accused have committed the alleged offences. 6. Having heard the said submissions, the Court has recorded its finding in the following manner: “It is pertinent to note here that, at this stage it cannot be said that the accused have not committed the alleged offences and the truth will come out at the time of trial only and the participation of the said accused persons in trial is very much necessary. It is pertinent to note that, mere production of the document, will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that, mere production of the document, will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note here that, this is not the stage for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications. It is pertinent to note here that, in the instant case from the records it prima facie appears that the accused Nos. 3, 11, 5, 9, 14, 18 & 19 have committed the alleged offences.” 7. Except stating the above said sentences, the Court has not visualized the factual aspects of the case so far as the petitioner is concerned and what are the specific allegations made against accused No. 19 and what are the materials collected by the police in order to substantiate the said allegations made against accused No. 19 and that whether those materials are sufficient and create strong suspicion to frame charges against accused No. 19 to proceed with the case. Therefore, it goes without saying that though the learned Magistrate has reminded himself of the procedure to be followed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C but in fact, he has not applied his judicious mind to the facts of the case and the materials collected by the police in order to draw inference of strong suspicion against the accused. 8. In the above said facts and circumstances, it is worth to refer the provision under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., which has been extracted by the learned Magistrate in its order. The said provision specifically says that upon considering the police report i.e., the entire charge sheet papers and the documents produced along with the charge sheet and the Court has to make such examination and thereafter giving opportunity to the prosecution and accused of being heard, the Magistrate shall consider the charge against the accused is based on sufficient grounds or the same is groundless. If the charge against the accused is groundless then he is bound to discharge the accused by recording reasons for so doing. If the charge against the accused is groundless then he is bound to discharge the accused by recording reasons for so doing. It is also worth to refer here a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 663 between P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala wherein the Apex Court has observed thus: “If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion or strong suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. The Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case, the documents produced therein and the materials collected by the police 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 documents produced before the court which ex-facie disclosed that there was suspicious circumstances, which is strong enough to frame charges against the accused.” 9. If the above said principle laid down by the Apex Court is applied to this case, it is evident that, the trial Court has not made any endeavor to cull out the fact, which are alleged against the accused No. 19 in this case and to find out what are the materials and documents produced by the prosecution in order to substantiate the said allegations and then the Court has to give finding whether those facts and materials collected are sufficient to proceed against the accused. It is not that, mere looking into the records by the Court is required but what emerges from those records and facts seen by the Court, which requires to be spelled out by the Court in the order itself. Therefore, it is just and necessary for the Court to not only examine the facts and the documents produced along with the charge sheet but to find out what are the materials that emerges from those facts and the documents in order to render a decision on the discharge application, which has absolutely not been done in this particular case. Therefore, it is just and necessary for the Court to not only examine the facts and the documents produced along with the charge sheet but to find out what are the materials that emerges from those facts and the documents in order to render a decision on the discharge application, which has absolutely not been done in this particular case. Even the trial Court has in an omnibus manner considered the application of all the accused persons together. When the charge sheet discloses there are separate distinct allegations are made against the individual or group of accused persons, in that eventuality the Court has to consider the applications of the accused individually or atleast make an effort to discuss the facts and materials collected by the police in the same order individually so as to come to a definite conclusion, which has not been done in this particular case. Therefore inevitably, this Court has to set aside the said order, remit the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration of the application filed by accused No. 19 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of the above said observation made by this Court. Hence the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Magistrate i.e., Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No. 5473/2012 dated 06.02.2017 is hereby set aside. The application filed by accused No. 19 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C is restored on to the file of the learned Magistrate with a direction to dispose of the said application after hearing the prosecution and the counsel in the light of the observations made in the body of this order.