JUDGMENT

G.Sri Devi, J. - This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, under Article 226 of the Constitug to quash the F.I.R.No. RC MA1 2017 A 0021 of SPE, CBI, ACB Chennai, dated 20.09.2017 registered against them by the 2nd respondent herein under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that the 1st petitioner is the Civil Servant of I.R.S. 1992 batch and she is presently working as a Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit) at Hyderabad. She had built up her career in the Income Tax Department since 11th October, 1992 when she joined as Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax and she had worked in different places as Joint Commissioner, Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner of Income Tax and she had an unblemished career; her service record has always been excellent, outstanding and she never faced any departmental or disciplinary enquiry in her entire career of more than two and half decades.

3. The 2nd petitioner is the husband of the 1st petitioner. He was also a Civil Servant in Indian Railways Accounts Service. He held high positions as Deputy Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer in the Indian Railways. He took voluntary retirement in the year 2009. At present he is a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh having been elected from Santhanutalapadu Constituency and representing the political party, YSRCP. He was a Member of Committee of Assurances, Member of Committee on Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare and is also a member of Committee on Public Accounts.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioners reside in their house at Plot No. 126, Road No. 11, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and that both of them are Income Tax Assesses and the PAN number of the 1st petitioner is ABAPT0991J and the PAN number of the 2nd petitioner is ACLPA5607N and they have filed their Income Tax Returns regularly for all these two and half decades. Both the petitioners have disclosed their income and assets particulars to the Department. In this regard, the 1st petitioner, as a Central Government Employee under Rule 18 of Central Service Conduct Rules (CCA Conduct Rules), has to submit Immovable Property Returns (I.P.R) every year and she has also required to disclose all the transactions every year, of immovable and movable properties. Similarly the 2nd petitioner herein is also obliged to declare his assets and income particulars while he was in service. Now the 2nd petitioner has contested to the State Assembly, under the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 read with Rules and Guidelines issued there under, he has to declare the assets with existing market value and income particulars.

5. It is also submitted that in the impugned F.I.R. registered on 20th September, 2017, it was, inter alia, stated that it was based on check period from 01/04/2010 to 29/02/2016. The assets held by the petitioners at the beginning of the check period were mentioned as Statement-A and the assets at the end of check period were mentioned as Statement-B. The income during the check period is mentioned as Statement-C. Though all the statements have been prepared on the basis of Income Tax Returns and I.P.Rs., submitted by the 1st petitioner and the Affidavits and Declarations made by her husband, the 2nd petitioner herein, at the time of his election to the State Assembly, but in the impugned F.I.R. it has been stated that they have acquired assets/pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 5,95,58,322/- against the income of Rs. 4,84,76,630/- and, therefore, they are having disproportionate assets to a tune of Rs. 1,10,81,692/- which is 22.86% of the income earned by them. It is further submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed as the very particulars mentioned in the F.I.R. do not support the conclusions therein. Even if all the averments in the F.I.R. and the particular