Inherent jurisdiction and bribery allegations: proceedings quashed where foundational facts of demand and acceptance were not established.

In exercise of inherent jurisdiction, criminal proceedings may be quashed where the FIR and collected materials do not disclose foundational facts making out the essential ingredients of the offence. In bribery allegations, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are foundational facts, and mere suspicion or recovery is insufficient. Here, the petitioner was not shown to have day-to-day control over the GST audit or financial operations, which were handled by the CEO, CFO and GST consultant. The alleged demand and transaction were attributed to other functionaries, while the petitioner's link remained indirect and improbable. The prosecution against the petitioner was therefore liable to be quashed, without affecting the case against the other accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner disclosed a prima facie case or were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction for lack of foundational facts and abuse of process.

Analysis: The allegations were examined against the petitioner's role in the management structure and the materials collected during the GST audit. The petitioner was not shown to exercise day-to-day control over the audit or financial operations, which were entrusted to the CEO, CFO, and GST consultant. The record indicated that the alleged demand and alleged transaction were handled by those functionaries, while the petitioner's involvement rested essentially on an asserted telephone link and an instruction attributed through another person. In bribery-related allegations, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are foundational facts, and mere recovery or suspicion does not suffice. The materials did not unerringly establish those foundational facts against the petitioner, and the surrounding circumstances, including the ongoing audit and the separate allegations against the CFO, rendered the prosecution version against the petitioner inherently improbable.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The criminal case was not permitted to continue against the petitioner, while the trial against the other accused persons was left unaffected.

Ratio Decidendi: In exercise of inherent jurisdiction, criminal proceedings may be quashed where the FIR lacks foundational facts showing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, and in bribery allegations demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be shown before presumption or prosecution can stand.

---