(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHANMORLE MORLE Date: 2026.04.13 18:17:50 +0530

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the charge-sheet of FIR No. 45 of 2025 at ACB Unit Bilaspur (C.G.) against the petitioner for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Amended Act 2018 also quashing of the cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Korba District Korba (C.G.) vide order dated 19.02.2026 in Special Case (Corruption) No. 1 of 2026 as well as the further proceedings of Special Case (Corruption) No. 1 of 2026 for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 amended Act 2018pending before the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Korba, District Korba (C.G.), in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Teacher (L.B.) and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that during the process of rationalization, although the complainant’s wife was not appointed under the disabled category, she subsequently obtained a disability certificate during service and produced the same before the competent authority, on the basis of which another teacher, namely Varsha Hardaha, was declared surplus. It is further submitted that with the assistance of the present petitioner, the said Varsha Hardaha preferred a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh and succeeded therein, and consequently, her transfer order was quashed by the D.E.O., Korba.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that thereafter, the complainant’s wife was called for counselling on 16.07.2025 and was transferred on 17.07.2025. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner demanded ₹2,00,000/- to prevent such transfer. However, the said allegation is false and fabricated. The petitioner, being merely a Teacher (L.B.), has no authority or capacity to influence transfer/posting, as the competent authorities under the policy are the Collector and Joint Director.

5. It is further submitted that due to the success of Varsha Hardaha in the writ petition, the complainant developed animosity against the petitioner and falsely implicated him. It is contended that no money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner; rather, the alleged amount was found in the complainant’s own house, which renders the prosecution case doubtful.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner never demanded or accepted any bribe and even at the time of interrogation denied the allegations. It is also argued that the phenolphthalein test did not yield a positive result, and the prosecution has fabricated the panchnama. He further contended that although the prosecution claims that the trap proceedings were videographed, the said footage has neither been properly produced before the trial court nor supplied to the petitioner. Further, there is no audio-video recording of the alleged demand or acceptance, as the recording device was not activated at the relevant time. These circumstances, according to the petitioner, create serious doubt about the prosecution case.

7. It is also contended by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the trap proceedings are doubtful, as the alleged recovery was made from the bedroom of the complainant, whereas the petitioner was in the living room and had no occasion to enter the bedroom. It is further submitted that a previous trap attempt on 15.07.2025 had failed and thereafter