1. This is a criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401, Cr.PC preferred by the petitioner assailing an order dated 8.9.2004 passed by learned MM whereby charge under Section 420, IPC has been framed against the petitioner. 2. The allegations against the petitioner were that he posing himself to be an expert in the development of hybrid variety of seeds and purchase and import and sale of seeds and assured the complainant that in case he could invest certain amounts with different breeders/farmers at his instance, he would be able to get him 100% profits on the investments and induced them to make payment amounting to Rs. 4 lac to certain firms and also Rs. 1.20 lac to petitioner on account of establishment expenses and Rs. 2 lac towards other expenses. It was alleged that the intention of the petitioner was to cheat the complainant and keeping in view that object had floated a partnership firm with the complainant and others involving his son as a partner in the partnership deed executed on 27th September, 1995. From the complaint as well as statement of complainant as recorded by learned MM, it was prirna facie noted by learned MM that the petitioner had entered into a partnership firm in the name of his son and had signed the partnership deed himself in the name of his son Prashant. 3. The only contention that was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the transaction that was entered into by the complainant and other with the petitioner was of civil nature and there was no criminal intention of petitioner to induce or cheat the complainant and other partners. 4. It may be that transaction did involve an action of civil nature but having regard to the nature of the allegations as set out in the complaint and from the statement of complainant, it is primafacie seen that the partnership that was floated was on the assurance of high returns and the investments were got made by the petitioner in different firms and also the payments were received by him towards expenses as noted above all these point finger of dishonest intention on the part of petitioner. There is grave suspicious of the petitioner having actively induced the complainant and his partners to part with huge sum of money. There is grave suspicious of the petitioner having actively induced the complainant and his partners to part with huge sum of money. The acts committed by the petitioner were apparently having the element of dishonest intention and criminality. 5. It is settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charges it is not obligatory for the Judge of trial to consider any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording of final guilt or otherwise of accused, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. Further at this stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, leading the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence is enough. Reliance in this regard is placed on State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2018, R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, AIR 1986 SC 2045 and Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, I (2000) SLT 133=1 (2000) CCR 72 (SC)=2000 I Apex Decision (SC). 6. In view of my foregoing discussion, the petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed without there being any orders to costs. 7. Nothing contained hereinabove shall amount expression or opinion to the merits of the case. 8. Since already considerable delay has resulted, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the present case.