As per case facts, a unit of the Indian Council of Child Welfare was granted permission to run a lottery to raise funds for handicapped children. Tenders were invited, and ... the Tender Committee recommended accepting the second highest tenderer. However, the respondent, the then Finance Secretary, recorded a false note stating the second highest tenderer was unreliable. Consequently, after other tenderers withdrew, the contract was awarded to the sixth highest tenderer. Investigation revealed that the fourth, fifth, and sixth highest tenderers were sister concerns involved in a conspiracy to gain undue pecuniary benefit, facilitated by the respondent's false note. An F.I.R. was registered alleging offenses under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court, however, quashed the F.I.R. The question arose whether the High Court erred in quashing the F.I.R. at an initial stage when it disclosed cognizable offenses, by undertaking an investigation into the merits of the allegations itself, contrary to the limitations of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court grossly erred in quashing the F.I.R. when several allegations making out a cognizable offense still required investigation. The Court emphasized that the High Court's role is not to investigate whether offenses are made out as if it were an appeal against a conviction order, especially at the F.I.R. stage. It reiterated that courts should refrain from interfering when an F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offense, respecting the police's statutory power to investigate, and should not stifle legitimate prosecution.