JUDGMENT

DALVEER BHANDARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Central Bureau of Investigation (for short `CBI) has questioned the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 in Crl. MP No.1802/2006 delivered by the High Court of Delhi by which it quashed the FIR and the charge-sheet against the accused-respondent under sections 120B and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:- A case (FIR RC No.AC3/2003, 0002) was registered against the then Vice- Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority and other senior officials of the DDA for entering into conspiracy with Dharmbir Khattar, Ajay Khanna, Ravinder Taneja, G.R. Gogia and Mukesh Saini to give undue favour to M/s DLF Universal Limited, New Delhi in the matter of allowing 300 Floor Area Ratio (FRA) in respect of one of the projects of DLF Universal by charging rates much below the prevailing market rates and obtained or agreed to obtain illegal gratification from M/s DLF as quid pro quo. The total bribe amount was 1.10 crores. During the course of investigation and subsequent search conducted at the residence of the respondent's son A.M. Sharan who was at that time Commissioner (Land Disposal, DDA), certain papers/documents relating to assets acquired/expenses incurred by him and his family members besides the cash amount of Rs.36 lacs were recovered and seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Consequently, a fresh FIR No.RC.AC.3/2003 A0003 was registered against A.M. Sharan, the son of the respondent.

4. During the investigation of the subsequent case emanating from FIR No. RC.AC.3/2003 A0003, A.M. Sharan claimed that the cash of about Rs.36 Lacs recovered from his residence belonged to his father, the respondent herein. On enquiry from the father, the respondent K.M. Sharan took the plea in writing that the amount recovered from the residence of his son belonged to him which he had received as sale proceeds of two properties, i.e., Plot No. 908 and House No. C-2/388, Janak Puri, New Delhi. The respondent submitted that the cash of Rs.4 lacs and 10 lacs received by him on 04.02.2003 and 06.03.2003 respectively from Vijay Gulati for the sale proceeds of Bahadurgarh plot and the cash amount of Rs.22 lacs was received on 20.03.2003 as an advance from Harmanjeet Singh and Anoop Singh for sale of Janak Puri house in total consideration of Rs.50 lacs.

5. The CBI found that there were several inconsistencies and irregularities in the stand taken by the respondent (written plea) and the stand taken by his son, A.M. Sharan with regard to recovery of Rs.36 lacs from the residence of A.M. Sharan. The CBI conducted investigation and after its completion, charge-sheet was filed on 06.09.2005 in the Court of Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi for offences under sections 13(2) read with 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A.M. Sharan and also under section 120B read with section 193 IPC against A.M. Sharan and the respondent. The respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1802 of 2006 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR/charge-sheet under section 120B read with 193 IPC. The High Court by the impugned judgment quashed FIR No.RC AC3/2003. According to the CBI, the FIR/charge-sheet was erroneously quashed by the High Court.

6. According to the appellant CBI, the High Court did not consider the material collected during investigation which according to the appellant was sufficient to prove the charges. According to the CBI, the High Court did not properly consider the entire material in proper perspective. According to the CBI, the allegations levelled against the respondent were fully supported by documents and also sufficient to prove the case during the trial. According to the CBI, the High Court has seriously