Cuttack: Citing a lack of prima facie evidence and an inordinate delay of over eight years in completing the investigation, the Orissa High Court has granted relief to two doctors – Senior Haematologist and Pharmacologist associated with a medical college in Odisha by quashing a disproportionate asset case against them.The Court was hearing petitions filed by a doctor couple, where the husband was accused of abusing his official position by allegedly prescribing expensive chemotherapy drugs to 14 patients under the State-sponsored Odisha State Treatment Fund (OSTF) scheme in 2017. Following this, Vigilance authorities conducted searches and registered a case against him and his wife for allegedly possessing disproportionate assets.Considering the plea, Single Bench Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra noted that the FIR was registered on December 5, 2017, and even after more than eight years, the investigation has not been completed. The Vigilance Department, on the oter hand argued that the delay was due to the need for a thorough investigation, the Court found this explanation unconvincing, particularly when the final amount of disproportionate assets has not even been crystallised till date.The Bench held, “The materials on record further indicate that throughout the prolonged course of investigation, the Petitioners have extended full cooperation to the investigating agency, and no circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court to attribute the delay in conclusion of the investigation to the conduct of the Petitioners. Moreover, upon a prima facie consideration of the record, the inconsistencies and arbitrariness pointed out by the Petitioners in the computation of their income and expenditure, including the alleged omission of certain heads of income, do not appear to have been satisfactorily addressed by the Vigilance Department.”Referring to a previous Supreme Court case, the bench stated that permitting the criminal proceeding agaisnt the doctors to continue any further would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law.Regarding the implication of the wife, the bench said, “It prima facie appears that her involvement in the present case is founded solely on the fact that she is the spouse of Dr ***, i.e. the Petitioner in CRLMC No.3829 of 2025.”Background of the case The case dates back to 2017 when the Vigilance Department initiated an inquiry against the petitioners based on allegations of criminal misconduct and possession of assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. Following this, several searches were conducted at their residences, flats, and workplace at SCB Medical College and Hospital.As per the FIR, a preliminary inquiry found that the doctor couple where the Husband and wife who work at the same medical college had failed to submit their property statements since joining Government service, nor had they obtained the requisite permission from the competent authority prior to acquiring certain assets.On the basis of the tentative preliminary calculation of the movable and immovable assets of the Petitioners and their expenditure, the Vigilance Department alleged that the Petitioners have assets disproportionate to their known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 4,00,32,026, which is stated to constitute approximately 219% of their known sources of income.Aggrieved by their implication in these offences, and noting that the FIR registered nearly eight years ago has still not resulted in completion of the investigation, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.Contentions on behalf of the petitionersThe counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the FIR does not disclose any prima facie offence, the delay of over eight years violates their right to a speedy trial under Article 21, and continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process.At the very outset, the counsel submitted that the court had quashed criminal proceedings by judgment dated 16.04.2025 in CRLMC Nos. 1628 of 2023 and 1629 of 2022 in a similar case, and contended that the present Petitioners stand on an even better footing than the petitioners in the aforesaid case.Learned counsel further submitted that, on the basis of the figures mentioned in the FIR itself, the Petitioners have surplus income of Rs. 11,44,885/- and Rs. 20,14,307/- respectively after accounting for their assets and expenditures. It was also contended that certain amounts received by the Petitioner (Wife) from her relatives through her bank account, though duly reflected in the income-tax returns filed before the authorities, have not been considered by the investigating agency. Likewise, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- received as advance towards the sale of an immovable property at Bhubaneswar has also allegedly been ignored despite being reflected in the income-tax returns.It was further argued that the petitioner (wife) was wrongly implicated under Section 34 IPC solely due to her marital relationship, despite having an independent income, and had already been exonerated in departmental proceedings on the same allegations.The counsel further observed that non-submission of property statements is not uncommon in the case of doctors, and that the Petitioner had subsequently submitted the property statements in accordance with the applicable service rules.Addressing the computation of household expenditure, learned counsel submitted that both the Petitioners reside together as husband and wife and therefore the household expenditure cannot be calculated separately for each of them.Relying on documentary evidence, it was submitted that no offence is made out and since the investigation has been delayed for a long time despite the petitioners fully cooperating, the case should be quashed.Contentions on behalf of the state-vigilance departmentOpposing the petitioners, Standing Counsel for the State Vigilance Department argued that FIR discloses cognizable offences and a prima facie case of disproportionate assets.The counsel submitted that the couple abused their official positions and extended undue favour to certain pharmaceutical companies by intentionally prescribing costly chemotherapy drugs to blood cancer patients treated under the OSTF scheme. This led to the searches on 22.11.2017 at the residential quarters of the Petitioners as well as other connected premises.Addressing the stage of investigation, learned counsel submitted that the investigation is presently at an advanced stage and is nearing completion. It further submitted that upon detailed examination of the materials collected thus far, the initially alleged disproportionate amount of Rs. 4,00,32,026/- as reflected in the FIR has been revised to Rs. 54,32,621.08. It was further submitted that such computation has been made after examining the net salaried income of both the Petitioners and after deducting 33% of the gross salary of the Petitioner in the second CRLMC application towards household expenditure, against the lawful income assessed by the Vigilance Department at Rs.3,76,45,650/-, which differs from the Petitioners’ claim that their lawful income amounts to Rs.4,04,80,744/-Counsel contended that both petitioners have been rightly implicated, that delay occurred due to the collection of extensive documents and COVID-19 disruptions, and does not prejudice them. Learned standing counsel stated that while considering such a plea, the Court must balance the rights of the accused with the larger societal interest in prosecuting serious offences. It was argued that the right of an accused to a speedy trial cannot override the demands of public justice.Analysis of the CourtReferring to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the FIR was registered on December 5, 2017, and even after more than eight years, the investigation has not been completed. The Vigilance Department argued that the delay was due to the need for a thorough investigation, but the Court found this explanation unconvincing, particularly when the final amount of disproportionate assets has not even been crystallised till date.The court further observed, “It is an admitted position on behalf of the Vigilance Department, as reflected in their objections filed in the present matter, that the earlier alleged quantum of disproportionate assets, to the tune of Rs 4,00,32,026, attributable to the Petitioners and quantified in the FIR, has later been reduced to Rs 54,32,621.08. Even this figure is not final, as the Vigilance Department has once again acknowledged that the definitive determination of the disproportionate assets would only be possible after obtaining and verifying certain documents from the concerned authorities.””The materials on record further indicate that throughout the prolonged course of investigation, the Petitioners have extended full cooperation to the investigating agency, and no circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court to attribute the delay in conclusion of the investigation to the conduct of the Petitioners. Moreover, upon a prima facie consideration of the record, the inconsistencies and arbitrariness pointed out by the Petitioners in the computation of their income and expenditure, including the alleged omission of certain heads of income, do not appear to have been satisfactorily addressed by the Vigilance Department. The explanation offered by the Vigilance authorities in response to these contentions is limited to stating that the final disproportionate assets figure has not yet been determined, that 33% of the gross salary of only the wife has been considered towards the per capita expenditure of both Petitioners, and that the interest earned by the Petitioners through MOD facilities would be taken into account only upon receipt of clarificatory documents from the concerned authorities. Apart from these statements, and the plea that the investigation in the matter is still underway, no other explanation to the satisfaction of this Court has been furnished to address the alleged discrepancies in the computation of income and expenditure as highlighted by the Petitioners,” added the courtRegarding the wife implicated in the present case, the Court found that her implication appeared to be based mainly on her being the spouse of the co-petitioner. The Court also noted that in a similar case decided earlier in 2025, proceedings had been quashed, and the present petitioners appeared to be on a similar footing.”On a prima facie appreciation of the materials placed on record, it appears that the Petitioners in the present case stand on a similar footing to those who were granted relief by the aforesaid judgment dated 16.04.2025,” added the court. In conclusion, the Court held that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioners based on the FIR.Regarding the unexplained and inordinate delay in completion of the investigation despite the lapse of more than eight years since the registration of the FIR, and taking into account the fact that the case of the present Petitioners appears to be substantially covered by the earlier judgment of this Court dated 16.04.2025, the Court held, “It finds no hesitation in holding that the present case falls squarely within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), particularly the third illustration to para 102 thereof. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that permitting the criminal proceeding to continue any further would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law. As such, the present case appears to be a fit case for the exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which corresponds to 528 of BNSS.”Accordingly, the court quashed the present criminal proceeding against the doctors. Also read- Contractual appointment of doctors at medical colleges has no legal sanctity: Orissa High Court