JUDGMENT S.B.SHUKRE, J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The offences punishable under Ss. 13(1) (c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been registered at Police Station, Sadar Nagpur against the present applicant. 3. The complaint has been filed against applicant by an Enquiry Officer, Milind Totare, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, who had conducted an open enquiry in the irregularities committed by various officials of the Irrigation Department in executing Gosikhurd Project on river Vainganga. The complaint was filed by him against different officials and the present applicant was one of them. At that time, he was working as Executive Engineer. The allegations made against him were that while evaluating tenders, this applicant had updated the tenders by increasing price of tendered work and that was done by him without following the established procedure. 4. Shri A.S.Mardikar, learned Senior Advocate submits that departmental enquiry was held against the applicant on similar allegation which was charge no.1 and in this enquiry, the applicant was exonerated of the charge no.1. Insofar as the charge relating to updation of tender (charge no.1) is concerned, he submits that it is the only charge made against this applicant in the present FIR but he has been exonerated of this charge in the departmental enquiry. To demonstrate the point, he has taken us through the order dtd. 22/6/2018 passed in departmental enquiry, showing exoneration of applicant from the charge based on similar allegation. He further submits that the standard of proof in departmental enquiry proceeding being that of preponderance of probability, is much lower than the standard of proof of evidence being beyond reasonable doubt required for proving guilt of the accused in a criminal case and therefore, the Honble Apex Court has held in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eow, CBI and another in Criminal Appeal No.575/2020 decided on 08/09/2020 any criminal proceeding based on similar allegation in a departmental enquiry which has resulted in exoneration of the delinquent of that charge cannot be permitted to be continued. 5. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eow, CBI and another in Criminal Appeal No.575/2020 decided on 08/09/2020 any criminal proceeding based on similar allegation in a departmental enquiry which has resulted in exoneration of the delinquent of that charge cannot be permitted to be continued. 5. Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned APP for the nonapplicants/State submits that the case of Ashoo Tewari (supra) is distinguishable on facts in the sense that investigation of the case therein was already completed and it was during the pendency of the criminal case before the Court of law that the Honble Apex Court found that in similar set of allegations, no criminal case can be allowed to be continued. He submits that since the investigation is still going on, it is quite possible that new material may be discovered and then, this case may take an entirely different turn. 6. To the extent of his submission that investigation is still going on and if any new material is found out, it is quite likely that this case may take a different colour, learned APP is right. When investigation of any case is underway, it may be that some further material is collected during the course of investigation and then some new offence is made out. But even for arising of such an eventuality, in our considered opinion, it is not necessary that the present investigation based upon same set of allegations should be allowed to be continued, as it is always open to police to carry out enquiry into fresh allegations and register a new crime if fresh allegations prima-facie disclose some new offence. 7. The reason why do we say so is to be found in the observations of Honble Apex Court in the case of Ashoo Tewari (supra) wherein, following the decision in the case of P. S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 9 SCC 1 , the Honble Apex Court has held that since the standard of proof required for proving a criminal offence is much higher, no criminal case can be allowed to be continued, if it is founded upon same allegations which formed the basis of departmental enquiry proceedings, wherein the delinquent Officer has been exonerated. State of Bihar (1996) 9 SCC 1 , the Honble Apex Court has held that since the standard of proof required for proving a criminal offence is much higher, no criminal case can be allowed to be continued, if it is founded upon same allegations which formed the basis of departmental enquiry proceedings, wherein the delinquent Officer has been exonerated. The Honble Supreme Court held that when upon a given set of facts, an officer is exonerated in departmental enquiry, which requires much lower standard of proof for proving the charge, the criminal proceedings based upon same set of facts must result in the failure as the standard of proof required in a criminal proceeding is much higher. The Honble Supreme Court has also held that what is required to be examined in such a case is whether or not the allegations made in departmental enquiry and the allegations in the criminal complaint are similar and identical and it is found that they are similar, the criminal proceedings must not be allowed to be proceeded further or otherwise, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 8. In the present case, we find that allegations made in the criminal complaint are similar and identical to the allegations made against this applicant in the departmental enquiry proceedings. In other words, the foundation of the criminal complaint made against the present applicant is a same set of allegations which constituted charge no.1 levelled against the applicant in the departmental enquiry proceedings. The departmental enquiry proceedings insofar as charge no.1 is concerned has gone in favour of the applicant and it has, in our view, wiped out the very basis of the criminal complaint filed against this applicant. It then does not appeal to reason to say that while the officer has committed no misconduct on the basis of one set of allegations, the officer has primafacie committed criminal offence on the basis of the same set of allegations. It is pertinent to mention here that the criminal complaint filed against the applicant by informant-Shri Milind Totare does not contain any more allegations than what formed the basis of charge no.1 levelled against the applicant in the department enquiry proceedings held against him in which the applicant has been exonerated of charge no.1. It is pertinent to mention here that the criminal complaint filed against the applicant by informant-Shri Milind Totare does not contain any more allegations than what formed the basis of charge no.1 levelled against the applicant in the department enquiry proceedings held against him in which the applicant has been exonerated of charge no.1. It then follows that the criminal investigation being carried out against the applicant in its present form cannot continue. But, at the same time, if any other enquiry is made by the Investigating Officer and some new material constituting new offence is discovered, the Enquiry Officer would always be at liberty to book the applicant for the new offence prima-facie found against him. But till that time, the complaint in the present form and the investigation based on it cannot be allowed to continue or otherwise it would be nothing but abuse of process of law. 9. In view of above, the application is allowed and the First Information Report filed against the applicant bearing Crime No.149/2020 dtd. 11/03/2020 at Police Station Sadar, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Ss. 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. It is made clear that investigation against the remaining applicants may go on in accordance with law. 11. Rule is made absolute in above terms.