JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Dept. Perused the CRLMC application, as well as other materials placed on record. Since the factual background of CRLMC No.1628 of 2022 is identical to that of CLMC No.1629 of 2022, both the matters are taken up together for consideration and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

PRAYER:

CRLMC No. 1628 of 2022, filed with a prayer to quash the FIR registered as Vigilance Cell PS Case No. 89 dated 15.09.2016 corresponding to V.G.R. Case No. 86 of 2016 pending in the file of Ld. Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack for the commission of offences under Sections 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) along with Sections 120 -B, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“ IPC ”),

CRLMC No. 1629 of 2022, filed with a prayer to quash the FIR registered as Vigilance Cell PS Case No. 87 dated 27.08.2016 corresponding to V.G.R. Case No. 82 of 2016 pending in the file of Ld. Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack for the commission of offences under Sections 13 (1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) along with Sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“ IPC ”)

2. The present CRLMC applications, have been filed by invoking the inherent power of the court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., by the petitioners who are not only doctors by profession are related to each other as husband and wife with a prayer to quash the proceeding borne out of the FIR registered as Cuttack Vigilance Cell PS Case No.87 and 89 respectively for offences as alleged in the FIRs files along with the respective CRLMC applications on the grounds as narrated in such applications. At the outset, counsel for the Petitioner alleged victimization of the Petitioner and to block the promotional prospects of the Petitioner. It was also contended that the FIRs have been registered without event conducting a preliminary enquiry with regard to the veracity of the allegation. Although, the present Petitioner was arrested on 16.09.2016, but later on he was enlarged on bail by the order dated 04.10.2016 passed by this Court in BLAPL No. 5920 of 2016. Thus, the counsel for the Petitioners tried to demonstrate that the very continuance of the proceeding would be gross abuse of process of law.

3. Before proceeding with the adjudication of the matter at hand, it would be most expedient to enumerate the prosecution case, as gathered from the FIRs filed on 15.09.2016 and 27.08.2016, in a succinct manner.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF CRLMC No.1628 of 2022

4. Initially, an FIR was lodged against the present Petitioner No. 1, Prof. Dr. Surendra Nath Senapati and Petitioner No. 2, Prof. Dr. Dipti Rani Samanta, alleging that the present petitioners abused their official position and showed undue favour to M/s J.B.S.L Chemical & Pharmaceuticals, Mangalabag, Cuttack (herein referred to as “JBSL”). The petitioners, Prof. (Dr.) Surendra Nath Senapati (Petitioner No. 1), HOD Radiation Oncology and his wife Prof. (Dr.) Dipti Rani Samanta (Petitioner No. 2), Asst. Professor, Medical Oncology, are renowned doctors who have been practising at the Acharya Harihar Regional Cancer Centre, Cuttack now Acharya Harihar Post Graduate Institute of Cancer (herein referred to as “AHRCC”) for more than t