https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469551 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. en-us Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jun 2026 15:42:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469551 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469551