Double Jeopardy Plea Cannot Be Rejected Due To Delay: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Second Criminal Trial

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy cannot be defeated merely because an accused approached the court after a delay, observing that no person can be forced to face the same criminal trial twice for the same offence.

Setting aside proceedings pending before a Dhar court for nearly two decades, the Court said the guarantee under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a “fundamental right” that can be invoked at any stage of a trial.

Justice Subodh Abhyankar passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Harsh, who had challenged the continuation of criminal proceedings against him in Dhar despite already facing prosecution in Vadodara in connection with the same allegedly forged bank drafts.

The case arose from a complaint lodged in March 2005 by the Manager of State Bank of Indore, Pipali Bazar Branch, Dhar, alleging that forged bank drafts worth several lakhs had been routed through the banking system. According to the prosecution, three drafts, including amounts of Rs.2.51 lakh, Rs.6.50 lakh and Rs.8.25 lakh, were linked to fraudulent transactions involving Anoop Udyog. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the petitioner and others for offences including cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code.

During the proceedings before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Girish Desai, argued that the petitioner had already been tried by a competent court in Vadodara in relation to the same drafts.

He submitted that the Vadodara court had acquitted the petitioner of certain offences while convicting him under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment. Desai contended that once the petitioner had undergone trial for the same transactions, continuing the Dhar proceedings would amount to double jeopardy prohibited by the Constitution.

The State, represented by Government Advocate Romil Verma, opposed the petition and argued that the application invoking Section 300 CrPC had been filed belatedly, almost four years after the initiation of proceedings. The State submitted that the trial before the Dhar court had remained pending because of an interim stay granted by the High Court and urged the Court to permit the trial to continue.

Rejecting the State’s objections, the High Court noted that two of the disputed bank drafts before the Dhar court were exactly the same drafts that had formed part of the prosecution in Vadodara. The Court observed that merely because one additional draft was included in the Vadodara case would not alter the nature of the offence or permit a second prosecution on identical facts.

“The protection from being tried for the same offence twice is not only a legal right but also a Constitutional and fundamental right which can be exercised at any given point of time in the life of a trial,” the Court observed.

The Court further held that an application invoking the doctrine of double jeopardy cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay. Justice Abhyankar said that if such pleas were ignored merely because they were raised late, “the whole purpose of such an enactment would be lost,” especially when the law seeks to prevent an individual from undergoing the hardship of repeated criminal trials for the same offence.

Holding that the petitioner was being prosecuted twice on the same set of allegations, the Court quashed the proceedings pending before the Dhar court and set aside the revisional court order dated September 2, 2011, which had earlier dismissed the petitioner’s challenge on limitation grounds.

The Court also relied upon earlier Supreme Court decisions dealing with the scope of double jeopardy protections, including Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateshwara Rao, Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, and J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan. Referring to these rulings, the High Court reiterated that law cannot permit multiple prosecutions arising from identical facts and allegations.

Case Title: Harsh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: April 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar