In Brief
A police inspector (Respondent No. 1) was accused of demanding and accepting bribes from the appellant in connection with a sexual harassment investigation. The High Court quashed the FIR registered against him, reasoning there was no direct evidence of his bribe demand. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the High Court improperly conducted a detailed merits inquiry at the quashing stage without considering material evidence surfaced during investigation, including a pendrive recording and categorical FIR allegations. The Court restored the FIR for trial, emphasizing that departmental exoneration does not preclude criminal prosecution when competent authority accords fresh sanction based on investigative material."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.