Rajasthan High Court Clarifies: Prior Complaint Does Not Bar Subsequent FIR for Same Offence, Magistrate Must Stay Complaint Proceedings Under BNSS Sec 233 - 2024-10-09

Rajasthan High Court: Subsequent FIR Permissible Despite Prior Complaint on Same Allegations

Jodhpur, Rajasthan – The Rajasthan High Court, in a recent judgment, has clarified the procedural framework when both a private complaint and a police First Information Report (FIR) are lodged concerning the same offence. Justice ArunMonga , presiding over the single bench, delivered the judgment in Ram Chandra Bisu & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. , addressing a petition seeking to quash an FIR No. 221/2023 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jaipur.

Background of the Case

The petitioners, including Ram Chandra Bisu, former Chairman of Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Soodwad, and Manju Devi, Chairperson of Gram Seva Sahkari Nimbola Vishwa, along with others, were accused of corruption based on a complaint by Nainu Ram . The allegations included sanctioning fraudulent loans to family members using forged documents and extending undue benefits under government loan waiver schemes. The FIR was registered under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471, 409, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), and Sections 7 , 13 (1)(A) , 13 (1)(C)(D), and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act .

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary, argued that a prior complaint (Complaint No. 06/2020) with similar allegations was already pending before the court of ACJM, Degana. They contended that registering a second FIR based on the same factual matrix was unwarranted and liable to be quashed. The petitioners highlighted that the current complainant, Nainu Ram , is the brother of the original complainant in the earlier case, who had since passed away.

Court's Observations and Legal Framework

Justice Monga , after considering the submissions and perusing the case file, referred to Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ), which corresponds to Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The court emphasized that this section explicitly addresses the procedure when a complaint case and a police investigation relate to the same offence.

The court quoted Section 233 BNSS , stating:

> “233. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. - (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation."

Justice Monga interpreted this section to mean that the existence of a prior complaint does not bar the registration of a subsequent FIR if the police receive information regarding the same offence. The procedural mandate, as per Section 233 BNSS , is for the Magistrate to stay the proceedings of the complaint case to await the outcome of the police investigation.

Court's Decision and Implications

Dismissing the petition to quash the FIR, the High Court directed that the proceedings in the earlier private complaint (Complaint No. 06/2020) shall remain stayed. This stay is contingent on the outcome of the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer in the newly registered FIR.

The judgment clarifies that while a second FIR on the same allegations is permissible, procedural safeguards are in place to prevent parallel proceedings. The Magistrate's role is crucial in coordinating between the complaint case and the police investigation to ensure a streamlined and lawful process.

This ruling provides important guidance on the interplay between private complaints and police FIRs, particularly in cases involving corruption and financial irregularities, ensuring that investigations can proceed effectively even when a prior complaint is pending.