The Orissa High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated by the Vigilance Department against two senior doctors of SCB Medical College and Hospital, holding that the case suffered from an unexplained delay of over eight years in completing the investigation and failure to establish a prima facie case of disproportionate assets.
The bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra has observed that the right to speedy investigation and trial forms an essential component of Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged and unexplained delay in criminal proceedings may justify judicial intervention.
The Vigilance Department had conducted searches in 2017 and alleged that the petitioners possessed assets disproportionate to their known sources of income amounting to approximately ₹4 crore, representing about 219% of their known income during the check period.
Buy Here: Supreme Court Monthly E-Compilation: February 2026 Edition
The petitioners challenged the proceedings before the High Court, contending that the calculations in the FIR were erroneous and that several legitimate sources of income—such as professional earnings, private medical practice income, rent, loans and other financial receipts—had been ignored by the investigators. They also argued that the investigation had remained pending for more than eight years despite their full cooperation.
During the hearing, the Vigilance Department informed the Court that after further scrutiny the alleged disproportionate assets had been reduced from ₹4 crore to about ₹54.32 lakh, though it stated that the final computation would depend on receipt of additional documents from various authorities.
The High Court noted that the FIR was registered on 5 December 2017 and that the investigation had still not reached its conclusion. The Court held that the explanation offered by the Vigilance authorities was not convincing, particularly when even the alleged quantum of disproportionate assets remained uncertain after such a prolonged investigation.
The Court also noted that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation and that no material had been placed on record to show that the delay was attributable to them. It further observed that several discrepancies highlighted by the petitioners in the computation of income and assets had not been satisfactorily addressed by the investigating agency.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, and Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that prolonged investigation without justification can infringe the fundamental rights of the accused.
Holding that no prima facie case was made out from the uncontroverted allegations and that the unexplained delay of more than eight years rendered continuation of proceedings an abuse of the process of law, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the vigilance case pending before the Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack, insofar as the petitioners were concerned.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. Rabindra Kumar Jena Versus State Of Odisha (Vigilance)
Citation: JURISHOUR-391-HC-2026(CAL)
Case No.: CRLMC No.3829 of 2025
Date: 13.03.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Prateik Parija
Counsel For Respondent: N. Moharana, Standing Counsel (Vigilance)
