State of Rajasthan vs Surendra Singh Rathore

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 372

SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Singh Rathore – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Saubhagya Sundriyal, Adv. Mr. Amogh Bansal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

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 A