As per case facts, an FIR was lodged against a Branch Manager for cheating and criminal conspiracy, during which investigation the appellant Hardeo Singh's name emerged for receiving overdraft facilities ... beyond the manager's financial competence. The Special Judge framed charges, and the High Court dismissed the appellant's plea for discharge, leading to this appeal. The appellant argued for discharge citing repayment of the loan and lack of direct accusation for illegal gratification. The question arose whether the appellant, despite repaying the overdraft and not being directly named for illegal gratification by the Branch Manager, should still face charges for criminal conspiracy and undue benefits. Finally, the Supreme Court observed that enjoying financial facilities beyond authorized limits, even with repayment, warranted investigation. It held that criminal conspiracy is often an inference, and the current stage required continuation of prosecution for a thorough probe, thus declining to interfere with the High Court's order.