Relief for Senior Hematologist and Pharmacologist in Disproportionate Asset Case: Key Insights and Implications

Orissa High Court quashes disproportionate-asset case against two doctors citing prolonged delay and lack of prima facie evidence

Summary of the court’s decision

The Orissa High Court has set aside a disproportionate-asset criminal prosecution against two senior doctors attached to a medical college in Odisha, citing an inordinate delay of over eight years in completing the investigation and an absence of prima facie evidence. A Single Bench under Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra granted relief to the husband-and-wife petitioners by quashing the proceedings and holding that allowing the matter to continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

Background of the case

Origin of allegations and initial inquiry

The matter originates in 2017 when vigilance authorities initiated an inquiry into allegations of criminal misconduct and possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income by the two doctors. The husband, a senior haematologist, was accused of abusing his official position by allegedly prescribing expensive chemotherapy drugs to 14 patients treated under the State-sponsored Odisha State Treatment Fund (OSTF) scheme in 2017. Following preliminary inquiries, searches were conducted at the couple’s residences, flats, and their workplace at SCB Medical College and Hospital, and an FIR was registered on December 5, 2017.

Alleged quantum of disproportionate assets

Based on a tentative preliminary assessment of movable and immovable assets and expenditure, the Vigilance Department initially alleged that the couple possessed assets disproportionate to their known income to the tune of Rs. 4,00,32,026 — approximately 219% of their declared lawful income. During the course of the prolonged probe, the department later revised this figure to Rs. 54,32,621.08, and further acknowledged that the final figure could not be crystallised without obtaining and verifying additional documents from concerned authorities.

Contentions presented to the court

Arguments advanced by the petitioners

Counsel for the doctors argued that the FIR failed to disclose any prima facie offence. They emphasised that the investigation, pending for more than eight years, violated the petitioners’ constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The petitioners maintained they had cooperated fully with investigators and contended that discrepancies in the Vigilance Department’s computation of income and expenditure had not been satisfactorily addressed.

The defence pressed specific points drawn from the FIR itself, asserting that when the figures mentioned therein were properly accounted for the petitioners still showed surplus income — cited as Rs. 11,44,885 and Rs. 20,14,307 respectively — after accommodating assessed assets and expenditures. The counsel noted that certain receipts credited to the wife’s bank account from relatives, and an advance of Rs. 5,00,000 toward a proposed property sale in Bhubaneswar, were reflected in income-tax returns yet allegedly ignored by the investigative agency.

It was further stressed that the wife’s implication under Section 34 IPC appeared to be premised solely on marital association rather than independent culpability, and that she had already been exonerated in departmental proceedings on similar allegations. The petitioners also argued that non-submission of property statements is not uncommon among medical professionals and that the relevant declarations had since been filed in compliance with service rules.

State Vigilance Department’s response

The Vigilance Department opposed the quashing petitions, arguing that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and a prima facie case of disproportionate assets. State counsel maintained the couple had misused their official positions by prescribing costly chemotherapy drugs favouring particular pharmaceutical interests for OSTF patients, prompting searches conducted on November 22, 2017.

Addressing delay, the State submitted the investigation was at an advanced stage and nearing completion, attributing the protracted timeline to the need for collection and examination of extensive documents and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The department also contended that, after detailed scrutiny, the alleged disproportionate amount had been substantially revised from the initial figure recorded in the FIR.

Court’s analysis and legal reasoning

Delay, cooperation by petitioners and evidentiary gaps

The court examined the timeline and material on record and observed that despite the FIR being registered in December 2017, the investigation remained incomplete after more than eight years. The Vigilance Department’s explanation — that the delay reflected the necessity of a thorough probe — did not, in the court’s view, satisfactorily address the situation, especially when the final quantum of alleged disproportionate assets remained undetermined.

The Bench drew attention to the petitioners’ consistent cooperation with investigators and found no evidence that the petitioners’ conduct contributed to investigative delays. On a prima facie review, the court found inconsistencies and arbitrariness in the Vigilance Department’s computations of income and expenditure, including alleged omissions of certain income heads, which had not been adequately explained. The court noted that the department’s responses focused largely on the ongoing nature of the probe and on outstanding clarificatory documents, rather than resolving the pointed discrepancies.

On the wife’s implication and comparative precedent

The court observed that the wife’s alleged involvement seemed to rest principally on her status as spouse of the co-petitioner, rather than on independent incriminating material. The Bench also referred to an earlier judgment of this court dated April 16, 2025, in which similar proceedings had been quashed, and concluded the present petitioners stood on comparable footing.

Invoking the Supreme Court’s principles laid down in the Bhajan Lal matter, the court held that permitting further continuation of criminal proceedings in these circumstances would be an abuse of the process of law. The Bench expressly found that, on the material presented, no prima facie case stood made out against the petitioners based on the FIR.

Conclusion and outcome

Balancing the petitioners’ right to a speedy trial under Article 21, the unexplained and inordinate delay in investigation, the deficiencies in the Vigilance Department’s computations, and the earlier favourable precedent, the Orissa High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings against the two doctors. The court’s order underscores the requirement that investigative agencies must pursue timely, document-backed inquiries and adequately address contested computations before prolonging criminal processes that substantially affect fundamental rights.