Departmental exoneration does not bar criminal probe where disproportionate assets allegations and property ownership remain disputed.

Departmental exoneration did not, by itself, bar criminal investigation into allegations of disproportionate assets, because the enquiry report had not been shown to have attained finality through acceptance by the competent authority. The Court held that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not ipso facto preclude prosecution, and found the present facts closer to that principle than to cases where a final administrative determination had already been made. Disputed issues concerning ownership and authenticity of the properties, as well as allegations of mala fides, were treated as questions of fact unsuitable for determination in inherent jurisdiction. As the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence, the Court declined to act as an investigating agency and refused quashing at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR alleging possession of disproportionate assets was liable to be quashed on the basis of departmental exoneration and the disputed ownership of the properties relied upon in the investigation.

Analysis: The enquiry report relied upon by the petitioner had not been shown to have attained finality through acceptance by the competent authority, and therefore the departmental exoneration could not by itself foreclose criminal investigation. The Court preferred the line of authority holding that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not ipso facto bar criminal prosecution, and held that the present facts were closer to that position than to the case where refusal of sanction or similar determination had already attained finality. It further held that the authenticity and ownership of the properties, as well as allegations of mala fides, involved disputed questions of fact that could not be adjudicated in proceedings under the Court's inherent jurisdiction. The Court also reiterated that, where an FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence, the Court should not act as an investigating agency or evaluate disputed material at the threshold.

Conclusion: The FIR was not liable to be quashed at this stage, and the petition was dismissed.

---