Rajasthan High Court: In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by petitioners under Section of the (CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections , , , and of the (IPC), a single-judge bench comprising of Sudesh Bansal, J., held that the petitioners’ involvement in the illegal kidney transplantation racket could not be dismissed at this stage, given the substantial evidence against the petitioners, including telephonic contacts and suspicious financial transactions and ongoing investigation.
In the instant matter, a FIR was lodged following an investigation into an international racket involving illegal kidney transplantation at Fortis Hospital, Jaipur. Additional charges under Section of the and Sections and of the (TOHO Act) were added as the investigation unfolded. A progress report indicated that 12 accused, including petitioner 2 had been arrested. Petitioner 1 was under investigation for his alleged telephonic contact with brokers and suspicious financial transactions. The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section of the , seeking to quash FIR registered against them.
The petitioners argued that they were innocent salaried doctors with no involvement in fraudulent activities. It was claimed the FIR was filed with malicious intent, as they had no nexus with the brokers or patients beyond their professional duties. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the investigation revealed significant evidence against the petitioners. It was contended that petitioner 2 was already arrested, and petitioner 1 was found to have suspicious contacts and financial transactions beyond his salary, suggesting involvement in illegal activities.
The Court found substantial prima facie evidence linking the petitioners to the illegal transplantation activities, including telephonic records and financial transactions. The Court noted that the investigations indicated involvement in illegal kidney transplants for commercial benefits. The Court emphasised that quashing an FIR under Section is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases where there is clear evidence of no cognizable offense or malicious intent. The Court noted that the case did not meet the criteria established by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal, , for quashing an FIR. The Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed petitioners, allowing the investigation to continue.
[Jyoti Bansal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2715/2024, order dated 30-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sumer Singh Ola, Ms. Komal Kumari Giri and Mr. Bajrang Sepat, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. G.S. Rathore, GA-cum-AAG and Mr. Laxman Meena, PP, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Penal Code, 1860
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The post appeared first on .