"Unexplained delay of 10 years in conducting investigation”: Delhi HC quashes FIRs against retired medical officer

The Delhi High Court on Friday quashed three First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against a retired Medical Superintendent of Deen Dayal Upadhyay (DDU) hospital on account of a delay in the investigation and filing of a charge sheet.

Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, “What weighs with me is not only the fact that the charge sheet is still awaiting sanction before the competent authority but also the inordinate and unexplained delay in conducting the investigation for 10 long years.”

The single-judge bench added that the incidents mentioned in the FIRs are more than a decade old, and a trial on a charge sheet after more than a decade would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. After a decade of filing FIRs, the petitioner cannot be forced to go through the agony of a trial, the court said.

Court was hearing a petition filed by one Dr. Sarbesh Bhattacharjee seeking direction to quash three FIRs registered at the Anti-Corruption Branch Police Station under Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Bhattacharjee was posted as Medical Superintendent, at Deen Dayal Upadhyay (DDU) Hospital on 10.03.2011 and was to retire on January 31, 2012, on attaining superannuation, but he was suspended from service on November 2, 2011, three months before his date of retirement. Thereafter, he applied to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, Delhi challenging his suspension order. CAT with its order dated December 23, 2021, quashed and set aside the suspension orders dated November 2 and 28, 2011.

As the CAT’s order was not implemented and Bhattacharjee's retirement date was approaching, he filed a Contempt Petition before CAT. Subsequently, two FIRs on the same tender investigation pertaining to the procurement of different medical equipment were filed against him on January 10, 2012. On August 22, 2014, another FIR was registered against him.

Bhattacharjee challenged the same in the High Court, to which the court while dismissing the petition observed:

“It is thus evident that in the RC/DAI/2014/A/0036 which the petitioner seeks to quash, no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner, and even while taking the cognizance, the petitioner was not summoned as an accused in view of the fact that there was no material to substantiate that he had committed any offence, as alleged.”

The counsel for the petitioner stated that there had been no departmental inquiry against him since his suspension, and he had never received a charge sheet or memorandum of charge sheet in relation to the Tender Inquiry.

On contrary, the counsel for the State stated that the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been prepared and is pending before the competent authority for grant of sanction. He also contended that no case for quashing the FIRs is made out in the current case based on a proper examination of the material gathered by the investigating agency.

Taking note of the submissions of the parties, while quashing the FIRs, Justice Singh stated that "in this case, there is an ‘abuse of process of law’, that the allegations in the FIR date from 2012 and 2013, and the complaint was filed two years after the incident, and the FIR was filed six months later. There has been a failure to register an FIR which is fatal. Furthermore, the respondent took more than ten years to complete the charge sheet".

The court stated, "From the forgoing, what can be gleaned is that Article 21 recognizes the right to a speedy trial and the prosecuting agency must justify the excessive delay and the petitioner’s actions should not be blamed for the delay".

Court further added that the prosecution took an unusually long and unexplained time to complete the investigation and noted that the petitioner had always cooperated and joined the investigation whenever called upon. "The sword has been hanging on his head for no fault of his," observed the court.

Case Title: Dr. Sarbesh Bhattacharjee v. State NCT of Delhi