The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised and that the trial court is responsible for evaluating evidence and testing documents.

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.

4. Upon notice, short reply had been filed by CBI. Plea has been raised that the role of the petitioner had appeared during the course of investigation and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against accused persons including the petitioner. It was pleaded that cognizance has been taken by the Court which the petitioner has not challenged and had filed the petition, though the FIR was registered in 2005. It was pleaded that the case was fixed for framing of charge and no application for discharge has been filed. It was pleaded that the petitioner was raising disputed question of fact which was beyond the purview of Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was pleaded that sanction for prosecution was obtained from the competent authority before filing the charge-sheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement 'B' which is part of the challan is available at page No. 17 of the record. It was urged that if we add up the claims and also add the share value, it would be seen that there are no disproportionate assets. It was urged that the CBI had not considered the documents and an application was filed by them and CBI have admitted them. It was urged that the year of acquisition of the property is important and the value existing during the check period should not have been considered. It was urged that the income-tax returns had been filed where they have explained the property and the jewellery. The counsel for the petitioner extensively referred to the report given by the Member (Personnel and Vigilance) CBDT. It was urged that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dimple Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, (2013) 2 SCC 1, was hearing a Review Petition but had held that the investigation launched against the wife was liable to be dropped as there was no ground to treat her as a public servant for the purposes of inquiry by the CBI. Reference was specifically made to paragraph No. 12 of the judgment.

6