Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Singh Rathore – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.16358 of 2024)
Decided On : 19-02-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – Second FIR – Maintainability – Registration of a second FIR is permissible when second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which earlier FIR already stands registered ; When ambit of two FIRs is different even though they may arise from same set of circumstances; When investigation and/or other avenues reveal earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy ; When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances ; Where incident is separate; offences are similar or different. (Paras 9 to 9.5)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 – Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Bribery charges – Second FIR – Maintainability – FIR prior in point of time refers to a particular incident and action taken therein is limited – Second FIR pertains to larger issue of widespread corruption in concerned department and is much larger in its scope than previous FIR – Quashing of FIR would nip investigation into such corruption, in the bud – Same would be against interest of society – Impugned Judgment set aside and FIR restored on file of Anti-Corruption – Appeal allowed. (Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Sole question for consideration is whether registration of the subsequent FIR is legally permissible and whether the High Court was correct in exercising its inherent powers in quashing the same.
Findings of Court:
In attending facts and circumstances, the judgment referred to in para 1, impugned herein is set aside and FIR No. 131 of 2022 stands restored on the file of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding the legality and permissibility of registering a second FIR are as follows:
A second FIR is permissible when it is a counter-complaint or presents a rival version of facts related to the same incident for which an earlier FIR has already been registered (!) .
It is also permissible when the scope of the two FIRs differs, even if they arise from the same circumstances, especially if the second FIR relates to a larger or different aspect of the overall situation (!) .
When investigation or related persons uncover new facts or circumstances that were previously unknown, a second FIR can be maintained to explore these new developments (!) .
If the incident involves separate acts or offences, whether similar or different, a second FIR can be registered accordingly (!) .
The registration of a second FIR is not inherently illegal if it pertains to a broader issue or conspiracy that was not fully captured in the first FIR, and such registration does not violate the principles of fair investigation or the legislative intent (!) (!) .
Quashing a second FIR solely on the grounds that it relates to the same incident as a previous FIR, without considering the differences in scope or new facts, may be unjustified and could hinder proper investigation, especially in cases involving widespread corruption or larger conspiracies (!) (!) .
The courts emphasize the importance of examining the facts and circumstances to determine whether the second FIR relates to the same incident or constitutes a distinct or larger issue, and they recognize that multiple FIRs can be valid if they serve the purpose of thorough and fair investigation (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal framework permits the registration of multiple FIRs under specific conditions, particularly when they involve different versions, larger conspiracies, new discoveries, or separate acts, and not merely as a repetition of the same incident (!) .
In conclusion, the registration of a second FIR is legally permissible when it aligns with these principles, especially in cases of complex or widespread misconduct, and should not be quashed unless it clearly violates the established legal standards.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. grounds for quashing (Para 4) |
| 3. details of the firs (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. legal permissibility of fir (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. restoration of fir (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of final judgment and order dated 9th September, 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B.Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4366 of 2022, whereby the respondent’s prayer for quashing of FIR No.131 of 2022 dated 14th April 2022 registered at District Bikaner with Police Station Pradhan Arakshi Kendra, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 20181[P.C. Act] and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[‘IPC’ for short], was allowed. The State, aggrieved by the quashing of FIR, is before us.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present lis are as under: -
3.1 Three persons, namely, Vipin Parihar, Chief Marketing Officer, Fern Bio-fuel Private Limited, his business partner Deven Shah and Satya Narayan Saini S.D. of Kusum Petro Chemicals, lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau to the effect that the respondent, who is employed as Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director, Bio-fuel Authority, Government of Rajasthan, allegedly demanded a bribe @ Rs.2/- per litre for the sale of bio-diesel, i.e., Rs.15 lakhs per month with a further Rs.5 lakhs for renewal of the license of the complainant. This FIR is numbered as 123 of 2022 under Sections 7 and 7A of the P.C. Act. This demand took place on 4th April 2022.
3.2 A second FIR was lodged on 14th April 2022 for the incidents which took place between 30th September 2021 to 12th April 2022 when one Mr. Shyam Prakash, Constable with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, brought information to the notice of Mr. Parsamal, DSP, that amongst other persons the respondent is indulging in taking bribes to grant licenses to run bio-fuel pumps. One Nimba Ram and Ashish were the middlemen, who were put on surveillance after due permission from the competent authority.
3.3 This FIR running into nearly 30 pages, details the alleged conspiracy of which the respondent was a part and records in considerable detail the calls received and made by the various persons involved in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy.
4. The respondent aggrieved by the registration of the second FIR, preferred a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code 19733[ Cr.P.C for short]. Grounds for seeking quashing inter alia are as follows :-
(b) The filing of a second FIR in respect of the allegations that are connected to previous allegations, for which an FIR already stands registered, would be irregular and deserves to be quashed. Reliance is placed on Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254. In this judgment, it is submitted that if there are two FIRs in respect of the same transaction, they would have to pass the “test of sameness”. Further reference is made to T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, which records that a second FIR in a case which is not a cross-case, violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(c) The allegations of the second FIR, it was submitted are an attempt to blow up the allegations of the first FIR.
(d) No sanction stands taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act for proceeding against the respondent.
(e) The FIR and the consequent investigation, are both against the edict of the Legislature and deserve to be quashed.
5. The arguments of the respondent found favour with the High Court. In the impugned judgment, the High Court r
Second FIR is permissible when second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which earlier FIR already stands registered.
The judgment established the principle that a second FIR for the same cause may not be permissible if the incidents could have been investigated in the first FIR, and that the abuse of power by the I....
The court ruled that distinct allegations in a second FIR, even involving some overlap with a prior complaint, do not invalidate the subsequent investigation process, affirming the principle of judic....
A second FIR is permissible if it discloses broader allegations or new facts, not merely repetitive claims, emphasizing the need for justice and fair investigation.
A second FIR is permissible if it presents a different version of the same incident, allowing for new discoveries to be considered.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
