Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46069 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9308 of 2025 Applicant :- Neelam Singh And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Raj Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dwijendra Prasad,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Jai Raj, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra vide which the discharge application of the applicants has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the first information report was lodged on 19.09.2020 at about 00:46 hrs by the informant against nine persons including the applicants with the allegations that the victim was mentally and physically tortured by the alleged accused for raising additional dowry demand. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants. Subsequently, a discharge application was moved by the applicants on 20.11.2024, which has been rejected by the court concerned on 04.02.2025 in a mechanical manner without considering the grounds as taken in the discharge application. He further submits that as per the settled position of law, every order should be a reasoned and speaking order. However, no reason has been assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the discharge application of the applicants. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 could not dispute the aforesaid facts, however, he has raised an objection regarding pendency of the earlier petition. 5. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside. 6. It is settled law that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One of the most important aspect for necessitating to record reason is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled that not only the judicial order, but also the administrative order must be supported by reasons recording in it. It is also treated as a part of natural justice and fair play. 7. In the case of Sant Lal Gupta and others v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others, (2010) 13 SCC 336, the Apex Court has held as under: "27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial orders must be supported by reasons recorded in it. ... The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected." 8. Applying the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court at the case in hand, I find the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 is completely bereft of the reasons, hence the impugned order is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court concerned to decide the discharge application dated 20.11.2024 afresh by speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. For the period of two months from today or till disposal of such application for discharge, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present 482 Cr.P.C. application is disposed of. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad