K.M. SHARAN Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by moving the present petition seeks quashing of the FIR registered against him for commission of offence punishable under Sections 193 & 120B IPC. He is one amongst other accused. Other accused have been charged for commission of substantive offences whereas the present petitioner has been charged for having conspired with the other accused. The investigators brought him in the dragnet as an other accused who is the son of the petitioner stated, while he was being interrogated by CBI sleuths, that the alleged ill -gotten money was not a bribe amount but as sale proceeds of two immovable properties belonging to his father i.e. the petitioner who recently entered into agreement to sell for his two properties for which he had received advance and earnest money and since the petitioner who was travelling quite often and was to go to Jaisalmer kept the amount with his son from whose house this amount was recovered. This statement of the accused did not find favour with the investigators and, therefore, the petitioner was also charged for conspiring the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC besides charging him under Section 193 of IPC.

(2.) THESE are the accusations against the petitioner. Petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR against him as according to him there is no evidence available with the prosecution to show if he ever conspired the commission of offence as his name did not figure anywhere in the entire episode wherefrom any inference can be drawn that this petitioner was a party to the commission of the crime or he ever entered into a conspiracy with the other accused persons for the commission of the offence.

(3.) THIS Court has only to deal with the petitioner's case in order to find out if provisions of Sections 120 -B of the IPC and Section 193 IPC can be attracted against him. I have looked into the charge -sheet filed by the CBI and have also looked into the various statements including the statements recorded of the perspective buyers who were to buy the properties of the petitioner. Question arises for consideration is whether the petitioner can be said to be a party to the crime punishable under Section 193 IPC and 120B IPC, on the ground that his son Anand Mohan Sharan disclosed before the investigators that the amount so recovered from him actually belonged to the petitioner.