Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7(a) – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 160 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(3) – First Information Report - Jurisdiction of High Court – Quash of order - Whether proceedings in Crime of Anti Corruption Bureau Police Station against petitioner amount to abuse of process of Court and lead to failure of justice is question involved in this case - Whether prosecution against petitioner is hit by Article 20(3) of Constitution - Whether permission of Magistrate/Court was required to take voice samples - Whether absolutely there was no material to proceed against petitioner by Investigating Officer - Whether collection of such samples amounts to accused being witness against himself as contemplated under Article 20(3) of Constitution Bench consisting of Judges of Honble Supreme Court in case referred to supra in Para’s 10 & 11 of judgment held - Whether results derived from impugned techniques amount to testimonial compulsion thereby attracting bar of Article 20(3) - Complainants friend induced him saying that he is in sand business and complainant can also mine transport and sell sand with some adjustments with Police - Saying so complainants friend furnished phone number of police constable - When complainant contacted over phone asked him to meet - On complainant meeting he represented that legally it is not permissible to mine and transport sand that can only be done on corrupt adjustment with Police Officers Deputy Superintendent of Police Circle Police Inspector Crime Police Sub-Inspector and Special Branch Police etc – Accordingly he tried to contact DYSP and was asked to come and meet on following day - He met DYSP - DYSP enquired him about how many vehicles he has and asked him to get vehicle numbers noted and sent out - After coming out noted bribe to be paid in a small book and handed over same to complainant – He received from complainant and asked him to get balance amount at earliest - complainant spoke to PSI also over phone - Thereafter complainant received repeated phone calls to come and pay money – Held, It was contended that Investigating Officer has collected voice samples without prior permission of Court therefore proceedings amount to abuse of process of Court - It was further contended that on collecting voice samples Investigating Officer submitted requisition before Magistrate to arraign petitioner as accused and Magistrate has not passed any order on such application and in absence of such orders Investigating Officer proceeding against petitioner amounts to abuse of process of Court - First information report is registered for offence punishable under Section 7(a) of PC Act which is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years - That is covered under Entry II of Second Table in Schedule I to Criminal Procedure Code relating to Classification of offences under other laws as cognizable offences - There is no dispute about that - Section 156 of Criminal Procedure Code authorizes Investigating Officer to investigate in cognizable offences without order of Magistrate – Therefore there is no merit in contention that prior permission of Magistrate was required for collection of voice samples or prior permission of Magistrate was required to arraign petitioner as accused in case - Similarly Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code authorizes police officer in charge of police station to register first information report in cognizable offences without prior permission of Magistrate - Only in non-cognizable cases, Sections 155(1) and (2) require the Investigating Officer to refer the informant to the Magistrate and bar him from proceeding with investigation without prior permission of Magistrate but not in cognizable offences – Further petitioner himself in Para of petition admits that Sessions Judge has accorded permission - Even otherwise since offence was cognizable one as discussed above permission of Magistrate for registering FIR against petitioner or conducting of investigation was not required – Therefore said ground of petition fails - It was contended that initially complaint was filed only against and absolutely there was no material to proceed against petitioner - Per contra on behalf of respondent No.1 it was contended that complaint implicates petitioner also during investigation call detail records were collected containing conversations between petitioner and complainant and they were matching with voice samples of petitioner - It was further contended that since there was material against petitioner charge sheet against petitioner is ready for submission - For quashing of proceedings for want of material against accused even as per judgment in case relied upon by learned Counsel for petitioner himself condition is that allegations made in complaint on their face value should not disclose any prima-facie offence against petitioner - This petition was filed soon after voice sample of petitioner was taken - Investigation was still in progress - In complaint states that constable accepted bribe stating that complainant has to make adjustments with Deputy Superintendent of Police Circle Inspector of Police Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police - It further states that as directed complainant spoke to Deputy Superintendent of Police on phone - It is further stated in complaint that Deputy Superintendent of Police enquired as to how many vehicles complainant has and got noted vehicle numbers and amount to be paid in small book - Complainant allegedly went on paying money - Copy of remand application produced by petitioner at Annexure-C states that note book entries and call detail records indicate that petitioner and police Sub-Inspector were involved in case - Petition is dismissed