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 Investigating Agency would cause prejudice to the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 131/2022 dated 14.04.2022 registered with Pradhan Arakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur District Bikaner for offences under Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (in short "P.C. Act") as well as under Section 120-B of IPC. The petitioner has sought for quashment of aforesaid FIR on the ground that FIR No. 123/2022 registered for offences under Sections 7 and 7A of the P.C. Act as well as under Section 120-B of IPC on 08.04.2022 relates to identical allegations of same transactions hence, the impugned FIR is second FIR for the same cause which is not permissible. The second ground of challenge is that admittedly the petitioner is a public servant and the offences alleged to have been committed are relatable to suspected recommendations made or decision taken by the petitioner in discharge of his official functions and duties and therefore under Section 17A of P.C. Act previous approval of the competent authority is necessary to conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Since the approval of the authority competent to remove the petitioner from his office has not been taken in this case, the FIR cannot be investigated as such, the FIR is not sustainable qua the petitioner.

2. According to contents of the first FIR (123/2022) one Vipin Parihar, Chief Marketing Officer of Fem Bio Fuel Private Limited, accompanied with his business partner Deven Shah as well as alongwith Satya Narayan Saini S.D. of Kusum Petro Chemicals came to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and submitted a written complaint on 06.04.2022. The complaint states that the petitioner who is Chief Executive Officer cum Project Director in Bio Fuel Authority under the Department of Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan, demanded bribe @ of Rs. 2 per litre for sale of bio diesel. On the date of complaint, the aforesaid demand was fixed at Rs. 15 Lakh per month. Further complaint is that the petitioner demanded Rs. 5 Lakh for renewal of the licence and extension of business at Baroda. The complainant stated that on 04.04.2022 he had met the petitioner in his office for renewal of his licence as well as permission for extension of his business and the petitioner put the demand for such an approval rather the petitioner put pressure that if the monthly amount fixed is not paid to the petitioner, the licence would be cancelled. The complainant stated that since he does not want to bribe the public servant, hence the complaint. Accordingly the authorities of Anti Corruption Bureau after necessary approval and preparation put a trap on 07.04.2022. The complainant reached the office of petitioner. The petitioner asked him to pay the money to one Devesh Sharma who was waiting outside the office. Devesh Sharma asked to put the money in his bag and closed the bag. As per the direction of the petitioner Devesh Sharma was to carry the bag directly to the house of the petitioner. Thereafter, other formalities of arrest and seizure were completed. It also surfaced that Devesh Sharma was in fact a taught of the petitioner and not a contractual employee in the Authority. Mobile phone of the petitioner and Devesh were also seized on the spot. It was specifically stated in the FIR that on forensic examination of the mobile phone of the petitioner and Devesh Sharma further details of bribery may surface.

3. The impugned FIR was registered on 14.04.2022 for incident which allegedly took place between 30.09.2021 to 12.04.2022. The information of impugned FIR was allegedly received on 30.09.2021 wherein Mr. Shyam Prakash a constable in the Anti Corruption Bureau informed to the DSP Mr. Paras Mal of the Bureau that in the State of Rajasthan there is huge and deep rooted corruption in the field of bio diesel. It is stated that the petitioner takes bribe for granting licence to run bio fuel pump as well as extorts money from the pump owners an