SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 2294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
K. Dhanalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
Crl.M.C. 1049 of 2022 & Crl.M.As. 4529 of 2022 and 5647 of 2022
Decided On : 11-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
A.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate with Jagrati Singh and Ms. Priya Rai, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Prasanta Varma, SPP, for the CBI with Ms. Hiteshi and Amrit Singh Khalsa, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) - The petitioner challenges an order dismissing her application for discharge in a disproportionate assets case - The FIR alleged assets disproportionate to known sources of income, leading to investigation by the CBI - Court finds that the prosecution's case relied on unfounded presumptions and conjectures, highlighting the importance of impetus for the burden of proof on the prosecution. (Paras 38-40)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - The court identifies that inherent powers must secure the ends of justice and prevent misuse of the process of law - The case was dismissed for lack of evidence demonstrating disproportionate assets. (Paras 80-82)

(C) The maintainability of the petition is affirmed as the case against the petitioner had been segregated from her mother, and there were gross inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, warranting quashing of the proceedings. (Paras 34, 38)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced accusations related to disproportionate assets allegedly amassed from 2000 to 2011, which included various properties and rental incomes derived from family assets. The investigation and subsequent charges were based on the assets attributed to both the petitioner and her mother.

Issues: The primary issues included the legal interpretation of disproportionate assets for public servants and whether the evidence presented was sufficient for a trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that gross discrepancies in evidence and a lack of coherent linkage between the assets and the alleged illegal sources fundamentally undermined the prosecution's case, thus granting the petitioner's plea for discharge.

Result: Petition allowed and the petitioner discharged from criminal proceedings.

Table of Content
1. background on petitioner's family and assets. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. history of legal proceedings against petitioner. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
3. petitoner's arguments for quashing the discharge order. (Para 30 , 31)
4. conclusion on insufficiency of evidence for prosecution. (Para 38 , 85 , 86)
5. final order discharging petitioner. (Para 91)

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. This is a petition filed seeking quashing of the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi in CBI Case No. 399 of 2019 arising out of the chargesheet No. 07 of 2019 dated 29.06.2019 and RC No. 2172011A0012 dated 23.11.2011 and all further criminal proceedings pending before the said Court in CBI Case No. 399 of 2019.

2. It is stated that the petitioner hails from Bangalore where her grand-parents owned large tracts of agricultural land since 1939, which with subsequent passage of time, increased in value with the expansion of Bangalore city.

3. The grand-mother i.e. the Nani of the Petitioner owned about 14-15 acres of land in Hosakerehalli in Bangalore from which the grand-mother was deriving business and rental income.

4. The petitioner's late father also had various properties in Bangalore including more than 15 acres of agricultural land in Mysore Road, Bangalore. He was into the business of transport and real estate and was getting rental income from immovable properties for decades.

5. It is stated that the petitioner's parents were earning around Rs.30 lakhs income during 1992-1993. The petitioner's parents also received Rs.12 lakhs from cultivation on land in Mangikoppa village, Turuvereke Taluk, Tumkur District owned by one of their family friends for the period 1975-76 to 2003-04, 1982-83 to 2003-04 and 1985-86 to 1999-2000.

6. The petitioner was selected to the IAS in the year 2000 and initially was allotted AGMUT Cadre.

7. On 09.08.2001, the petitioner got married to her colleague of the same batch, namely, Sorabh Babu who was an IAS of the Uttar Pradesh Cadre and post-marriage, the petitioner was also allotted U.P. Cadre.

8. On 09.08.2002, the petitioner's mother, (Smt. M. Parvathamma) at the insistence of Petitioner's husband, gifted the Petitioner an immovable property situated at 12-E, IIIrd Main Road, Byatarayanapura, New Extension, Mysore Road, Bengaluru-110026 which her mother had got as a gift from her brother, namely, Mr. C. Ramaiah by virtue of the gift deed dated 08.12.1972.

9. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner was greedy and was always pressuring the petitioner to seek more and more money and immovable properties from her mother and brother despite the fact that they were regularly giving valuable gifts to the petitioner.

10. On 10.01.2007, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 020253 for Rs.1.40 lakh to Mr. Radhey Shyam, the father-in-law of the petitioner, which was encashed on 04.04.2007.

11. On 23.01.2006 and 24.09.2007, the petitioner and her husband were blessed with 2 daughters.

12. It is stated that after the birth of the second daughter, the husband of the petitioner again started pestering the petitioner to demand more property from her mother and brother, and therefore, the petitioner again requested her mother to gift her some more immovable properties.

13. On 14.12.2007, the mother of the petitioner executed the following gift deeds in favour of her 2 grand-daughters:

(i) 51/1 Jaya Nagar House, Bengaluru

(ii) 539, Banashankari Third Stage, Bengaluru

(iii) 3 & 4 Thimmaiah Road, Bengaluru

14. The property being 3 & 4 Thimmaiah Road, Bengaluru was purchased by the mother of the petitioner and the plan was also sanctioned in her name. In the year 2006, the mother of the petitioner executed a building contract with one Mr. Mohan who executed the construction work till 2009. Since the property was gifted to the daughter of the petitioner on 14.12.2007, a Joint Development Agreement dated 07.03.2009 was executed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top