https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190015 At the stage of framing charge, inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is confined to whether the record discloses sufficient material for a prima facie case, not to testing final proof. Here, the investigation materials indicated sanction and drawal of large overdraft facilities beyond the branch manager's financial competence and supported an alleged wider criminal conspiracy. Repayment of the facilities did not by itself negate scrutiny of how the facilities were granted and enjoyed. On that basis, continuation of the prosecution at the charge stage was justified and quashing was refused. en-us Thu, 11 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:00:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190015 At the stage of framing charge, inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is confined to whether the record discloses sufficient material for a prima facie case, not to testing final proof. Here, the investigation materials indicated sanction and drawal of large overdraft facilities beyond the branch manager's financial competence and supported an alleged wider criminal conspiracy. Repayment of the facilities did not by itself negate scrutiny of how the facilities were granted and enjoyed. On that basis, continuation of the prosecution at the charge stage was justified and quashing was refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190015