L. Narayana Swamy, J.

1. The Lokayuktha sought to prosecute husband of the petitioner under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case came to be registered in Crime No. 54/2012. The check period was taken as 29.8.1992 to 22.6.2012.

2. In the said proceedings, the Lokayuktha police recorded statement of wife and thereafter she is made as Accused No. 2 on the ground that she has committed an offence punishable under Section 109, 177, 468, 465 and 471 IPC. On the basis of the charge sheet filed by the Lokayuktha Police the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences alleged against both husband as well as the wife.

3. Being aggrieved, the present petitioner who is wife of Accused No. 1 has presented the present petition seeking to allow revision petition and to set aside the order dated 16.7.2015 in Spl. C.C. No. 327/2015 on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge/Special Judge under PC Act, Bengalore Urban District, Bangaluru (CCH-24) taking cognizance of the offences in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that she has instigated her husband to legalize the income illegally acquired by him. Further the rental income of Rs. 90,000/- is claimed annually for the Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2008-09 and Rs.1,92,000/- for Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2010-11. It is also alleged that no agricultural income was claimed for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2007-08 but later agricultural income is claimed and for the Assessment Years 1997-98, 1998-99, 2000-01 to 2005-06 agricultural income is overwritten/tampered. Thus it is alleged that the petitioner has committed offences punishable u/s. 109, 177, 468, 465 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

5. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Lokayuktha Police took cognizance against husband of the petitioner as well as the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition as aforesaid.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent Lokayuktha Police and perused the entire records.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that materials on record do not establish the allegations made against the petitioner. The petitioner has been assessed to income tax on the income earned by her. The properties which are standing in her name belongs to her and are her self acquired or inherited properties. The petitioner cannot be held liable for the alleged actions of her husband. There is no material or evidence in support of the charge sheet that the petitioner has instigated her husband to amass wealth and the ingredients of Section 109 of IPC are not satisfied at all.

8. It is submitted that the flat at No. B-201, Mantri Pride Apartment, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1st Block, Bengaluru was rented out from 2004 to 2006. After transfer of husband of the petitioner they are staying in the said flat. The petitioner has never claimed any rental income in respect of the said Flat from assessment year 2007-08 onwards.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the income tax returns are revised for the Assessment Year 2006 to 2007 to 2010 - 2011. The respondent police have not verified the original income tax returns with the Income Tax department before making such an allegation against the petitioner.

10. The petitioner has claimed her agricultural income and business income for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 and the same has been duly accepted by the Income Tax Department. The Income Tax Department has also issued revised Assessment orders, thereby accepting the income declared by the petitioner. Without getting any confirmation from the Income Tax Department, the respondent police have launched a criminal prosecution which cannot be sustained.

11. It is submitted that the respondent police have only considered the assets standing in the name of the petitioner but fa