Ashok Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52000
1 WP-29275-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 14 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 29275 of 2025
ASHOK MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Upadhyay - Senior Advocate with Shri Sarthak Nema,
learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Anubhav Jain - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Pradeep Mittal J.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for
quashing nineteen criminal trials pending before the Special Judge
(Lokayukta), Bhopal, together with two First Information Reports being FIR
No. 261/2014 and FIR No. 262/2014, presently under investigation. The
petitioner rests his case squarely on the doctrine of double jeopardy engrafted
in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and the statutory bar contained
in Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that during the period 2006 to 2009,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52000
2 WP-29275-2025
the petitioner was posted as Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

During this tenure, the District Co-operative Agriculture and Rural
Development Bank Ltd., Bhopal, initiated auction proceedings against
several defaulting agriculturists under the M.P. Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin
Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1999, and the statutory role discharged by the
petitioner was confined to confirmation of the resultant sales under Section
28(3) of the said Adhiniyam.
3. A common complaint dated 08.08.2007 was lodged by a group of
agriculturists before the Lokayukta alleging wide ranging irregularities in the
said auctions. A three member inquiry committee submitted its report on
27.10.2007, culminating in registration of a single Preliminary Enquiry being
P.E. No. 03/2008. On the strength of this singular source material, the
Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta) split the matter into twenty-four
separate First Information Reports against the petitioner, invoking Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with
Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Of these twenty four cases, the Special Court (Lokayukta), Bhopal
has already tried and convicted the petitioner in three, namely SPL-Lok No.
24/2016 arising out of FIR No. 446/2013 vide judgment dated 11.11.2019,
SPL-Lok No. 29/2015 arising out of FIR No. 280/2013 vide judgment dated
06.12.2024, and SPL-Lok No. 45/2015 arising out of FIR No. 482/2013 vide
judgment dated 31.12.2024. Criminal appeals assailing these three
convictions are presently sub judice before this Court, and the substantive
sentences awarded therein stand suspended.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52000
3 WP-29275-2025
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the remaining

nineteen trials and two FIRs constitute an abuse of the process of the Court,
inasmuch as the modus operandi, the core witnesses, the documentary
evidence and the legal provisions invoked across all twenty four cases are
identical. It is urged that since the petitioner has already been tried and
convicted in three matters arising out of the very same transaction, the
continuation of the remaining prosecutions is squarely barred by Section
300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 20(2) of the
Constitution, reliance being placed on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001)
6 SCC 181, and T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, decided by the
Supreme Court on 08.12.2022.
6. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayukta
defends the maintainability of separate proceedings, submitting that each
auction order confirmed by the petitioner involved a distinct default by a
different agriculturist, concerning altogether different parcels of land, and
therefore constitutes a separate and distinct offence under Section 218 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, incapable of being clubbed as a single series of
acts forming the same transaction within the meaning of Section 220 thereof.
Reliance is placed on the dismissal of the petitioner's earlier prayer for
clubbing of these very trials by the learned Principal District & Sessions
Judge, Bhopal, which order came to be affirmed by the Supreme Court in
SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 1826/2024 vide order dated 11.03.2024, having regard
to the advanced stage of trial in each case.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52000
4 WP-29275-2025
record. The principal relief sought is the wholesale quashing of the remaining

nineteen trials and two pending FIRs by invoking the protective umbrella of
double jeopardy under Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
Article 20(2) of the Constitution. For the bar to operate, the subsequent trial
must be in respect of the "same offence", or on the "same facts" for any other
offence for which an alternative charge could have been framed at the earlier
trial, the decisive test being whether the essential ingredients of the offences
are identical.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on T.P.
Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, decided by the Supreme Court on
08.12.2022, wherein it was held:
"What is to be noted here is that both these provisions, i.e., Section
300 of the CrPC and Article 20 of the Constitution of India use the term
'same offence'. Before dealing with the issue at hand, it is necessary to
understand what the term 'same offence' means and includes. The term 'same
offence' in simple language means, where the offences are not distinct and
the ingredients of the offences are identical. Where there are two distinct
offences made up of different ingredients, the embargo under Article 20 of
the Constitution of India has no application, though the offences may have
some overlapping features. The crucial requirement of Article 20 is that the
offences are the same and identical in all respects, vide State (N.C.T. of
Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600."
9. We find T.P. Gopalakrishnan (supra) to be squarely
distinguishable on facts. There, the two prosecutions arose out of the very
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52000
5 WP-29275-2025
same set of facts, namely misappropriation by the same accused during

overlapping tenure at the same office, rendering the ingredients of the
offences identical. Applying the very same test here, while the source
documentation and the petitioner's status as confirming authority under
Section 28(3) remain common threads, each of the twenty four FIRs stems
from a separate and independent auction transaction, involving a different
defaulting agriculturist, distinct property, and facts and financial calculations
peculiar to that transaction alone. Mere commonality of statutory
terminology between Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
Article 20(2) of the Constitution cannot, without identity of facts, attract the
bar such identity is conspicuously absent here, and each instance accordingly
constitutes a separate and distinct offence. A conviction or acquittal in
respect of the auction of one agriculturist's property cannot bar prosecution
for an alleged illegality in another's, merely because both trace back to a
single omnibus complaint. T.P. Gopalakrishnan (supra) is, therefore, of no
assistance to the petitioner.
10. It also bears notice that the petitioner's alternative prayer for
clubbing of these very trials travelled to the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.)
Diary No. 1826/2024, where the Court, by order dated 11.03.2024, observed:
"The petitioner, who is an accused, is seeking clubbing of 24 cases. In
each case, a number of prosecution witnesses have been already examined.
Therefore, at this stage, the prayer for clubbing of aforesaid cases cannot be
entertained. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
11. Once the Supreme Court has held that the advanced procedural
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52000
6 WP-29275-2025
stage of these trials renders their clubbing impermissible, this Court cannot,

under Article 226 of the Constitution, achieve the same result indirectly by
quashing the trials in their entirety.
12. The principle in T.T. Antony (supra), that a second First
Information Report is impermissible, applies only where subsequent
information relates to the same cognizable offence or occurrence, it cannot
immunise a public servant from prosecution for multiple, distinct acts of
alleged corruption committed seriatim, merely because those acts surfaced
through a single, collective inquiry report. Each criminal allegation must be
tested on its own evidentiary merits, and since the evidence, affected persons
and underlying transactions vary from case to case, the pending trials must
be allowed to reach their logical conclusion before the Special Court. We
accordingly find no illegality or constitutional infirmity in the continuation
of the pending trials and investigations; the bar of double jeopardy does not
extend to distinct financial transactions involving separate and distinct
victims.
13. Power of the High Court to transfer cases and appeals under
Section 447 of the BNSS: Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court
that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Sanhita,
or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is
expedient for the ends of justice, it may order that any particular case or
appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court
subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or
superior jurisdiction. The High Court may act either on the report of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52000
7 WP-29275-2025
lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own

initiative, provided that an application for such transfer has been made to the
Sessions Judge and rejected by him.
14. The Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No.
13600/2023, by order dated 18.07.2023, granted liberty to the Sessions
Judge, Bhopal, to pass an appropriate order for clubbing in accordance with
law. The Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the order and declined to club the
matters. It is noted that the Sessions Judge has the power to transfer a case
from one Court to another Court under Sections 448 and 449 of the BNSS.
However, under those provisions, the power is limited. The Sessions Judge
has the power to transfer a case before the commencement of the trial or for
administrative reasons. Since there is no administrative reason and the trial
has already commenced, the Sessions Judge has no power to transfer the
case. Such power can be exercised only by the High Court under Section 447
of the BNSS once the trial has commenced.
15. It is argued that there are two Special Courts (Lokayukta) at
Bhopal, and some cases are pending before one Court while the remaining
cases are pending before the other Court. The Sessions Judge has already
rejected the application for clubbing all the cases, and that order has been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Although all the cases cannot be
clubbed together, nor can common evidence be recorded in pursuance of the
order of the Apex Court, in order to avoid contradictory judgments on the
same facts and for the convenience of the witnesses and the accused, it
would be appropriate that all the cases be tried by the same Judge. Hence, in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52000
8 WP-29275-2025
exercise of the power conferred under Section 477(c) of the BNSS, the

Sessions Judge, Bhopal, is directed to make arrangements for transferring all
the cases to one Court. It is made clear that each case registered against the
petitioner shall be decided separately in its own mertis.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with the
aforesaid directions.
17. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. A copy of this order be
forwarded to the Special Court (Lokayukta), Bhopal, and the Sessions Judge,
Bhopal, for information and onward compliance. There shall be no order as
to costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
Praveen

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:07:37