K. DHANALAKSHMI Vs. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the petitioner impugns registration of FIR bearing No. 2172011A0012, under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act") / Section 109 IPC registered at Police Station CBI/ACU(V), New Delhi dated 23.11.2011.

(2.) THE concise facts of the present case as set out in the petition are that on 23.11.2011, on the basis of source information CBI registered the impugned FIR against the petitioner Smt. K. Dhanalakshmi, IAS Officer of Batch 2000 (UP Cadre) and Smt. M. Parvathamma, the mother of Smt. K. Dhanalakshmi for committing offences under Section 109 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act on the allegations, inter alia, that the petitioner presently on Central deputation and posted as Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi has amassed assets disproportionate to her known sources of income, in her name and in the name of her mother Smt. M.Parvathamma. It is alleged in the FIR and Source Report that the petitioner has amassed assets disproportionate to her known sources of income to the tune of Rs.3,15,92,163/ - (Rupees Three Crores, Fifteen lakhs, Ninety Two Thousands and One Hundred and Sixty Three only) in her name as well as in the name of her mother Smt. M. Parvathamma during the check period from 12th September 2000 till 23rd November, 2011. It is also alleged that during the said period, the petitioner acquired a large number of benami properties in the name of her mother Smt. M. Parvathamma (accused No. 2), a house wife who abetted the petitioner to acquire assets in her name and disproportionate assets are beyond her known sources of income.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner raised the first contention that the income of the petitioner is in much excess over her assets, thus the provisions of Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act cannot be invoked. In furtherance of the contention learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the basis of the impugned FIR is that the petitioner is holding assets disproportionate to her known sources of income and CBI in its calculations has included the properties in the name of petitioner's mother in the FIR. Further, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the CBI has filed an affidavit that a closure report will be filed against Smt. M. Parvathamma, mother of the petitioner and as per affidavit filed in Crl. M.C. No. 5352/20014 by Mr. Surender Malik, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI who is investigating officer, the assets in the name of the mother of the petitioner as shown in the FIR are wholly excluded from the present case, hence the FIR against the petitioner ought to be quashed.