The criteria for framing charges in criminal cases require only prima facie evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

1. The present petition under S.482 CrPC has been filed seeking for quashment of the order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2016. By the said order, the Revisional Court while rejecting the revision petition has affirmed the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur dated 18.11.2015 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No.732 of 2011 whereby the ACJM had framed charges against the petitioner under S.409, S.418 and S.423 of IPC.

2. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition is that the respondent Priya Ramchandani had filed a complaint against the petitioner on 11.04.2008. As per the said complaint, the respondent - complainant and the wife of the petitioner namely Smt. Suman Agrawal formed a partnership firm on 25.04.2006 in the name and style of 'Water Care'. The business which the said partnership firm intended to carry out was cleaning and other maintenance works of the overhead water tanks. The said firm was having its bank account with SBI at their Santi Nagar Branch, Raipur bearing A/c No. 3006422201 in the name of Water Care. In due course of time, the said partnership firm appointed the petitioner who is the husband of one of the partners i.e. Smt. Suman Agrawal as an agent on behalf of the firm on 15% commission basis. The job of the petitioner was to do the field work and visit various customers of the firm and to collect the payments which were to be received by the firm and deposit the same in the bank account of the firm. However, sometime later, it was detected that the petitioner who was in fact an agent of the firm being operated by his wife and the respondent introducing himself as the proprietor of the said firm got opened separate bank accounts in the name of Water Care in Federal Bank, Raipur and also in Bank of India at Bhilai. The petitioner, in stead of depositing the collected money which was otherwise payable to the firm in the bank account of respondent's firm i.e. SBI branch at Shanti Nagar, Raipur deposited the money in Federal Bank, Raipur as well as Bank of India, Bhilai. Thus, the petitioner has committed criminal breach of trust and cheating and also fraudulently got a bank account opened showing himself to be the proprietor of the firm 'Water Care' which in fact was a partnership firm operated by the respondent and the wife of the petitioner.

3. According to the complainant, on verification of the different works they had executed and the payment that they had received showed that the petitioner in fact had committed huge amount of misappropriation. Thus, sought for initiation of prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under S.409, S.418 and S.423 of IPC.

4. After filing of the complaint, the trial Court examined the witnesses before registration of the complaint and being convinced of an offence prima facie having been committed, registered a case as Criminal Complaint Case No. 732 of 2011. Further vide order dated 18.11.2015 the Magistrate after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case framed charges against the petitioner for the offence under S.409, S.418 and S.423 of IPC.

5. This order of framing of charge against the petitioner was put to challenge before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2016 which was also rejected by the Revisional Court vide its order dated 09.03.2016 leading to the filing of the present CrMP.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order on the part of the Court below in framing of charges against the petitioner was bad in law for the reason t