As per case facts, the petitioner, a public servant, was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Branch for allegedly demanding illegal gratification to facilitate a licence. He challenged the criminal proceeding, citing ... lack of preliminary enquiry, mechanical sanction, and absence of direct proof of demand or acceptance of bribe. His prior attempts to quash the proceeding were rejected, and departmental proceedings against him were set aside by a Tribunal, but not on merits. The question arose whether there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed with the trial for corruption offences, especially considering the arguments about preliminary enquiry and proof of demand. Finally, the Court found prima facie evidence, including phone calls, tainted money recovery, and witness statements, confirming demand and acceptance. It ruled that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in specific trap cases. The court dismissed the quashing application, stating the matter should proceed to trial.