https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176673 The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstated criminal proceedings against the respondent. It clarified that prior sanction under Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C. is required for the court taking cognizance, not for case registration or investigation. Remanding an accused to custody does not amount to taking cognizance. The High Court's use of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings during investigation was deemed incorrect. The decision ensures the investigation can continue without undue judicial interference, preserving the statutory process. en-us Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176673 The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstated criminal proceedings against the respondent. It clarified that prior sanction under Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C. is required for the court taking cognizance, not for case registration or investigation. Remanding an accused to custody does not amount to taking cognizance. The High Court's use of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings during investigation was deemed incorrect. The decision ensures the investigation can continue without undue judicial interference, preserving the statutory process. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176673