https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760613 The FIR and accompanying materials were found not to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences at face value. The restraining order under section 132(3) covered bank lockers, accounts and fixed deposits, while the revocation order referred only to bank accounts, and the bank officers acted on a mistaken reading of that order. The materials did not show dishonest inducement from inception, entrustment, misappropriation, mens rea, common intention, criminal conspiracy, or intentional cooperation. As the allegations did not prima facie support the offences invoked, the criminal proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process under the court's inherent jurisdiction. en-us Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Apr 2026 10:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760613 The FIR and accompanying materials were found not to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences at face value. The restraining order under section 132(3) covered bank lockers, accounts and fixed deposits, while the revocation order referred only to bank accounts, and the bank officers acted on a mistaken reading of that order. The materials did not show dishonest inducement from inception, entrustment, misappropriation, mens rea, common intention, criminal conspiracy, or intentional cooperation. As the allegations did not prima facie support the offences invoked, the criminal proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process under the court's inherent jurisdiction. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760613