JUDGMENT : MITALI THAKURIA, J. Heard Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This application is filed under Sections 482 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for the setting aside and quashing of the order dated 16.10.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) [in short ‘ld. Addl. CJM], Guwahati, Assam, in PRC Case No. 2001/2019 by which charge under Section 408 of the IPC has been framed against the present petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that: on 23.02.2019, one Sri Pulak Baidya, (SM) of Nexa Chandmari/respondent No.2, lodged an FIR before the Chandmari Police Station alleging, inter alia, that one of their employees, who had already been terminated, was found to have engaged in embezzlement of company funds while dealing with customers. The employee had inappropriately handled cash payments and, during the account audit, a shortage in the payments for the cases he had handled was discovered. Thereafter, the management of NEXA Chandmari (Pallavi Motors Pvt. Ltd.) published a public notice in the Assam Tribune. 4. Further, based on the FIR, a criminal case was registered by the Officer-in- Charge of Chandmari Police Station, vide Chandmari Police Station Case No. 159/2019, under Section 408 of IPC against the present petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested by the Chandmari Police on 26.02.2019 and forwarded to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (M), at Guwahati on 27.02.2019. It is worth mentioning here that the Investigating Authority did not seek the custody of the accused for the purpose of investigation, and accordingly, the accused was remanded to Jail Hajot. The petitioner was granted bail by this Court on 26.03.2019, vide Order in Bail Application No. 682/2019. While granting bail, this Court observed that the amount allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner had not been mentioned in the FIR, nor was it reflected in the forwarding report. The FIR was further observed to be very unspecific. 5. After investigating the allegations in the FIR, the I.O submitted the Charge- Sheet (No. 31 dated 31.03.2019) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) [in short ‘ld. CJM], at Guwahati. The FIR was further observed to be very unspecific. 5. After investigating the allegations in the FIR, the I.O submitted the Charge- Sheet (No. 31 dated 31.03.2019) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) [in short ‘ld. CJM], at Guwahati. As per the Charge-Sheet, it appears that the I.O had visited the place of occurrence and recorded witness statements, and concluded that the case against the present petitioner under Section 408 of IPC was well established. It is noteworthy that the Charge-Sheet does not mention the seizure of any documents from NEXA Chandmari, Pallavi Motors, or any audit report, bank statements, etc., despite the alleged embezzlement of company funds. 6. Following the submission of the Charge-Sheet before the ld. CJM, PRC No. 2001/2019 was initiated, and trial ensued against the present petitioner. It is stated that the learned Trial Court, upon receiving the case record on transfer, took cognizance of the offence under Section 408 of IPC against the present petitioner, vide Order dated 02.09.2019. The learned Magistrate, by the same Order, also directed that summons be issued to the petitioner. In compliance with the summons, the petitioner appeared in PRC No. 2001/2019, and relevant copies such as the FIR, statements of three prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Charge- Sheet were provided to the petitioner as an accused in the PRC. After service of the relevant copies by the prosecution side, the learned Magistrate heard the prosecution side, represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as the engaged Counsel for the petitioner, at length on the consideration of the Charge on 03.08.2023. The learned Magistrate, vide Order dated 03.08.2023, fixed the case for passing the necessary Order on 16.10.2023. Accordingly the ld. Addl. CJM, vide the impugned Order dated 16.10.2023, framed charges under Section 408 of the IPC against the present petitioner. 7. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order dated 16.10.2023, passed by the ld. Addl. CJM, Kamrup (M), who had charged the petitioner in connection with P.R.C. No. 2001/2019 under Section 408 of the IPC, the petitioner has filed this petition praying for the setting aside of the Order dated 16.10.2023 and the quashing of the P.R.C. No. 2001/2019. 8. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner was working as a Sales Executive under Nexa Pallvai Motors. 8. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner was working as a Sales Executive under Nexa Pallvai Motors. As a Sales Executive, he was responsible for apprising customers about the price, features, and other details of various models of vehicles. The petitioner had little to no involvement in the monetary transactions between the customer and the showroom during the vehicle delivery process. Therefore, there was no question of the petitioner misappropriating the company's money. 9. He further submits that from the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is the only material available; no other evidence, such as an audit report, bank statement of the company, etc., was submitted by the prosecution. Despite this, the learned Trial Court proceeded to take cognizance of the offence under Section 408 of the IPC and framed charges against the petitioner by order dated 16.10.2023. The trial court also overlooked the fact that no customer has lodged a complaint regarding any excessive payment made to the petitioner, nor have any statements from such customers been recorded during the investigation into the alleged misappropriation. Furthermore, there is no record or material to show any shortage of payment in the cases handled by the petitioner, as alleged in the FIR. 10. Hence, the learned trial court framed the charge in a mechanical manner without properly considering the merits of the case. The charge was framed against the petitioner in the absence of any relevant documents, and there is no possibility of conviction for the petitioner. Therefore, it would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that this is a fit case in which the order dated 16.10.2023, passed in connection with PRC Case No. 2001/2019 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, including the FIR and charge-sheet, may be set aside and quashed by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the charge was framed by the learned trial court after considering the prima facie materials against the petitioner, which attract Section 408 of the IPC. He further submits that the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the charge was framed by the learned trial court after considering the prima facie materials against the petitioner, which attract Section 408 of the IPC. He further submits that the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. indicate the involvement of the accused/petitioner in the offence, and that, based on these materials; the learned trial court rightly framed the charges against the petitioner under Section 408 of the Cr. P.C. 12. In this context, Mr. Keyal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has submitted that the charge was framed after considering the statements of the P.Ws. A prima facie case has been established against the petitioner based on the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he raised an objection and submitted that this is not a fit case for setting aside and quashing the criminal proceedings by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 13. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the case diary and the scanned copy of the case record. It is seen that the FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 against the present petitioner alleging embezzlement of company funds while dealing with customers. However, it is admitted that no complaint has been lodged by any customer. It was only during the company’s auditing that it came to the knowledge of the company that funds had been embezzled by the petitioner. It is a fact that no audit report or bank statement was collected by the I.O during the investigation. However, considering the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. and other materials collected by the I.O, a prima facie case has been established against the petitioner, and accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed by the IO. Moreover, from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, it is evident that, at the time of framing the charge, the Trial Court had heard the objections raised by the petitioner’s side. After considering all the aspects of the case and finding a prima facie case, the charge was framed against the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the charge was framed mechanically, without the application of judicial mind. 14. After considering all the aspects of the case and finding a prima facie case, the charge was framed against the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the charge was framed mechanically, without the application of judicial mind. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , has held as under: “ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 15. In the instant case, it is seen that there is no material to conclude that the FIR was lodged due to any ulterior motive or previous grudge. Moreover, a plain reading of the FIR shows that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner. 16. More so, it is view of the Hon’ble Apex Court that while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. In this regard, a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc, reported in (2003) SCC online 379 , can be relied on wherein, the paragraph Nos. 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the said judgment, reads as under: “9. Having gone through the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings and discharging the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the limited powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. 10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”. 11. One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the initiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried. 12. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried. 12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, when the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings and applying the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on exercise of the powers at the stage of discharge and/or quashing the criminal proceedings, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 17. From the materials available in the Case Diary and even from a plain reading of the statement made in the FIR, it is seen that a prima facie case has been established against the petitioner, based on which the charge was framed. Further, acquittal may be a possible outcome, but, at this stage, the court is not supposed to go into the detail of the merits of the case, nor it is the stage to discuss every detail of the evidence of the witnesses. 18. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for invoking the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to set aside and quashing of the order dated 16.10.2023 passed in P.R.C. No. 2001/2019, registered under Section 408 of the IPC by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thus, this criminal petition stands dismissed. 19. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of.