Prima facie charges and evidentiary allegations bar pre-trial quashing of cheating and conspiracy prosecutions.

At the pre-trial stage, the Court held that charges for cheating and criminal conspiracy should not be quashed where the materials disclosed a prima facie case and the allegations required evidentiary proof. The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could not be used to stifle a prosecution merely because the defence version might later be possible, particularly where the alleged conduct was linked with bypass of bank and the possible role of conspiracy in connected corruption-related allegations. The High Court's quashing order was therefore set aside and the prosecution was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the charges under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at the pre-trial stage.

Analysis: The allegations showed that the respondents had obtained cash credit facilities in circumstances where the bank process was allegedly bypassed and the transaction was linked with the influence of their father, who was the President of the bank. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court found that the materials were sufficient to disclose a prima facie case. The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could not be used to terminate the prosecution where the allegations required proof by evidence. The alleged conduct was also considered in the backdrop of the connected offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the possible role of conspiracy.

Conclusion: The quashing of the charges was not justified and the order of the High Court was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution against the respondents was permitted to proceed, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of considering quashing or framing of charge, if the allegations disclose a prima facie offence and require evidentiary proof, the court should not exercise inherent powers to stifle the prosecution.

---