RAVINDER KAUR Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.RC3(A)/2005 dated 12.04.2005, registered under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 IPC. The prayer made herein is to quash the FIR and the final report presented by the prosecutors.

(2.) Baldev Singh Sandhu, posted as Commissioner of Income Tax (Computer Operation) along with his wife(petitioner), brother, father and mother have been named in the final report prepared under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The officer is accused of alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets. The basic stand taken by the petitioner is that the family members and the extended family have been arrayed as an accused when only one of them was a public servant. The other plea taken by the petitioner is that the FIR was registered in 2005 and CBI took seven years to complete the investigation.

(3.) The petitioner had submitted that in the initial report prepared in July, 2009, the prosecutor had calculated the disproportionate assets of the extended family to the tune of 244%, while the individual disproportionate assets/expenditure relating to the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner and the son was computed to be 202%. In the revised report, the disproportionate assets of the extended family was reduced to 160% while that of the petitioner and her family was reduced by 25%. The petitioner has further pleaded that the report was sent to the disciplinary authority for sanction and the Member (Personnel and Vigilance) of the Central Board of Direct Taxes did not agree with the report for grant of sanction and referred the matter back to the CVC for reconsideration. It was pleaded that there was a difference of opinion between the CVC and the disciplinary authority and there was no documentary evidence to establish that assets had been acquired by the wife were Benami and adding the name of the petitioner was unjustified and without basis.