1 WP : 1067/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1067 OF 2010 Mrs. Swapnali N. Lindait .... Petitioner Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of .... Respondents Police, Anti Corruption Bureau & ors. Mr. Sandeep Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. U.V. Kezriwal, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 22nd February, 2011 P.C. 1. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate, she has filed this petition for quashing criminal complaint filed against her under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act. It is alleged that she had demanded a sum of Rs.10.000/- towards her professional fees and Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification to be paid to Assistant Charity Commissioner for the purpose of getting a trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. The complainant had approached Anti Corruption Bureau, which had made arrangements for laying a trap. In the trap, the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the money and the complaint came to be registered against her. 2, The petitioner sets out two grounds for quashing of the proceedings against her. Firstly that the complaint filed is with malafide intention to 2 WP : 1067/2010 harass the petitioner and by way of counter attack to the complaint filed by one Mr. Wagh,Assistant Charity Commissioner against the brother of the complainant under Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes) Act. The petitioner claims that Mr. Wagh is her foster father. The second contention of the petitioner is that the prosecution relies upon tape recording of the telephonic conversation between the petitioner and the complainant. In the charge sheet, the prosecution has relied upon the transcript of the telephonic conversation. The cassettes of tape recording had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai for Auditory Analyser’s report. The report received shows that the voice sample of the speaker in the telephonic conversation was distorted and as such it was not possible to identify the same. According to the petitioner, the vital piece of evidence and material on the basis of which the prosecution could establish the demand being demolished on account of the report given by Forensic Science Laboratory, no purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to the trial. 3. There is nothing on record to indicate that the complainant was aware of the relationship between the petitioner and Mr. Wagh, so as to file a false complaint in order to get at Mr. Wagh through the petitioner. Therefore the proceedings cannot be scuttled at the threshold on this ground. As regards the second contention, though the report of Auditory Analyser Report is, prima facie, of hardly any assistance to the prosecution, it cannot be said that there is no evidence whatsoever with the prosecution, apart from the tape recording of the conversation. The prosecution will be examining the complainant and the other witnesses available with it. In the circumstances, 3 WP : 1067/2010 this is not a case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint against the petitioner. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J)