Forgery and Breach of Trust Are Not the Same - Not Covered by Double Jeopardy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea for FIR Quashing

“Two Offences, Two Allegations — Distinct in Ingredients, Separate in Nature” — Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to quash an FIR registered against a government medical officer for alleged criminal breach of trust involving hospital records. The Court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar, firmly held that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to stifle a legitimate prosecution based on a prima facie cognizable offence.

The petitioner had invoked the doctrine of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC and Article 20(2) of the Constitution, asserting that he was already being prosecuted in another FIR involving similar facts. However, the Court decisively ruled that “the ingredients of the offences are distinct” and hence the bar under either provision was not attracted.

Forgery and Breach of Trust Are Not the Same: Court Dissects the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy

The case arose from an earlier FIR wherein Dr. Devendra Swami was accused of forging a hospital admission certificate to aid the accused Karan Morwal in securing anticipatory bail. In that matter (FIR No. 180/2022, P.S. M.G. Road, Indore), charges were framed under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 193, and 34 IPC. In contrast, the present FIR (Crime No. 359/2022, P.S. Badnagar) alleges that Dr. Swami requisitioned the original Indoor Patient Admission Register from a staff nurse and never returned it — thus amounting to criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 409 IPC.

The petitioner argued that both prosecutions arose from the same incident and were hence barred. But the Court observed:

“Both the prosecutions relate to same series of acts but they are not identical in nature. The petitioner was earlier prosecuted for forgery of the record... whereas, the later prosecution relates to criminal misappropriation and breach of trust regarding the official record entrusted to him.” [Para 12]

The High Court further elaborated on the scope of Section 300 CrPC and Article 20(2) of the Constitution, observing that no prior trial, conviction, or acquittal had occurred in the earlier case, which is a mandatory precondition for invoking the bar of double jeopardy.

“The petitioner was not tried and acquitted or convicted by a competent Court for earlier offence... Hence, the benefit of provision contained in Section 300 Cr.P.C. and the law laid down in T.P. Gopalakrishnan (supra) is not available.” [Para 12]

The Court reiterated the classic position that Article 20(2) of the Constitution — the constitutional bar against double punishment — only applies if a person has been both prosecuted and punished for the same offence earlier. Referring to Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325, it said:

“Clause (2) [of Article 20] has no application when the subsequent proceeding is a mere continuation of the previous proceeding... the crucial requirement is that the offences are the same and identical in all respects.” [Para 11]

Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC Not for Short-Circuiting Investigations: “Prosecution Not Baseless or Malafide”

The High Court further rejected the petitioner’s claim that the FIR was malicious and filed with ulterior motives. Referring to the evidence collected — including witness statements and audio recordings — the Court held:

“The accusation against the petitioner is not baseless. It is substantiated by the statement of Staff Nurse Varsha Shinde and Sonam Borkhe and the audio recording seized during investigation.” [Para 14]

The FIR had been registered after an inquiry revealed that Dr. Swami had taken the Indoor Patient Admission Register on 18.09.2021 but failed to return it. Crucially, the missing register allegedly contained forged entries showing Karan Morwal’s admission to the hospital from 13.02.2021 to 15.02.2021 — which was used in courts to seek bail.

In rejecting the petition, the Court relied on settled precedents including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122. It reiterated:

“The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution... it would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable.” [Para 8]

The Court categorically found that this case did not fall within any of the illustrative exceptions laid down in Bhajan Lal, which would justify quashing the FIR at the threshold.

Distinct Charges, Different Offences — No Bar to Prosecution

Dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that there was no legal or factual basis to quash the FIR registered against Dr. Devendra Swami for the offence of criminal breach of trust. The Court underscored that while both FIRs arose from a related sequence of events, they dealt with legally distinct allegations involving different ingredients of offence, and thus could not be equated for the purposes of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC or Article 20(2).

In its parting observation, the Court cautioned:

“To scuttle the investigation and the prosecution, in aforestated scenario, would itself be an abuse of process of Court.” [Para 14]

Accordingly, the petition was found meritless and dismissed.

Date of Decision: 02 February 2026