https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753428 Inherent quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 is described as sparingly exercised, limited to cases where the FIR or collected material discloses no offence, the prosecution is barred by law, or exceptional circumstances justify interference. The text states that courts should not conduct a mini trial at the threshold, and that allegations of demand, acceptance and channeling of illegal gratification, if supported by investigation material, are sufficient to let the prosecution proceed. It further notes that a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory for a cognizable offence, delay in sanction does not automatically nullify proceedings, and mala fides or procedural objections are ordinarily left for trial. en-us Fri, 24 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jun 2024 13:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753428 Inherent quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 is described as sparingly exercised, limited to cases where the FIR or collected material discloses no offence, the prosecution is barred by law, or exceptional circumstances justify interference. The text states that courts should not conduct a mini trial at the threshold, and that allegations of demand, acceptance and channeling of illegal gratification, if supported by investigation material, are sufficient to let the prosecution proceed. It further notes that a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory for a cognizable offence, delay in sanction does not automatically nullify proceedings, and mala fides or procedural objections are ordinarily left for trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753428