SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THE KEY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A SECOND FIR CAN BE REGISTERED

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a Judgement dated 19-02-2025 in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Surender Singh Rathore, Special Leave Petition (Criminal.) No.16358 of 2024 overturning a Rajasthan High Court ruling that had quashed a second FIR against a government official accused of corruption. It clarified the legal grounds for registering a second FIR in criminal cases, stating that it was legally valid as it revealed a broader conspiracy. Consequently, the Court reinstated the FIR and directed the investigation to proceed.

FACTS:

1. That the aforesaid Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by the State of Rajasthan (Appellant) against Surender Singh Rathore (Respondent), challenged the final Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2022 of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur (High Court) in B.Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4366 of 2022, whereby, the Court quashed  the Respondent’s prayer for quashing of FIR No.131 of 2022 dated 14.04.2022 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, 2018 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was allowed.

 

2. Three individuals, Vipin Parihar, Chief Marketing Officer of Fern Bio-fuel Private Limited, his business partner Deven Shah, and Satya Narayan Saini, S.D. of Kusum Petro Chemicals, filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau. They alleged that Surendra Singh Rathore, Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director of the Bio-fuel Authority, Government of Rajasthan, demanded a bribe of ₹2 per liter for the sale of bio-diesel, amounting to ₹15 lakh per month, along with an additional ₹5 lakh for the renewal of their license. Based on this complaint, the Police registered FIR No. 123 of 2022 under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The alleged demand for the bribe took place on 04.04.2022.

 

3. On 14.04.2022, The Police registered a second FIR, No. 131 Of 2022, concerning events that occurred between 30.09.2021, and 12.04.2022. Constable Shyam Prakash of the Anti-Corruption Bureau informed DSP Parsamal that Surendra Singh Rathore, along with other individuals, was accepting bribes to issue licenses for bio-fuel pumps. The Police placed two middlemen, Nimba Ram and Ashish, under surveillance after obtaining permission from the Competent Authority. The Second FIR, a nearly 30-page document, detailed a broader conspiracy, listing multiple conversations and transactions related to the bribery scheme.

 

4. Surendra Singh Rathore challenged the second FIR by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Rajasthan High Court. He argued that the second FIR did not disclose any fresh incidents and that any additional information should have been investigated under the first FIR, with a supplementary report submitted instead of filing a new case. He contended that the allegations in the second FIR merely exaggerated those in the first FIR. Additionally, he claimed that the investigation was unlawful as it proceeded without the required sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

 

5. The Rajasthan High Court accepted Rathore’s arguments and quashed the second FIR, ruling that both FIRs pertained to similar offences committed within a short time frame. The Court noted that the second incident, which allegedly occurred before the first FIR was registered, could have been included in the original investigation, as a joint trial was legally permissible. The High Court further held that prior permission was mandatory for the investigation and that proceeding without it rendered the second FIR unsustainable.

 

6. The State of Rajasthan challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the second FIR uncovered a larger conspiracy, making it distinct from the first. The Supreme Court examined the legal position on multiple FIRs and found that, while registering a second FIR for the same incident is impermissible, a fresh FIR is valid if it reveals a larger conspiracy or involves different transactions. The Court emphasized that quashing the second FIR would hinder an investigation into widespread corruption, which was against the public interest.

 

HIGH COURT:

 

The High Court noted that both FIRs involved allegations of bribery against Surendra Singh Rathore for granting official favours. It observed that the first FIR (No. 123 of 2022) pertained to a bribe demanded on 04.04.2022, while the second FIR referred to a bribe allegedly accepted on 21.01.2022. The Court held that both offences were identical in nature and committed within a short period.

The High Court reasoned that since the second incident occurred before the first FIR was registered, the investigation into the earlier incident should have been conducted under the first FIR itself. It stated that under the law, a single trial for both charges was permissible.

The High Court also held that the investigation under the second FIR could not have proceeded without obtaining prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It ruled that the absence of such sanction rendered the FIR unsustainable. 

ISSUES:

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was to determine the legality of registering a second First Information Report (FIR) in a criminal case, particularly when it uncovers a broader conspiracy beyond the scope of the initial FIR. This question arose after the Rajasthan High Court quashed the second FIR against a government official accused of corruption, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

SUPREME COURT:

1. The Court noted that the first FIR (No. 123 of 2022) pertained to a specific bribery demand made on 04.04.2022. In contrast, the second FIR (No. 131 of 2022) uncovered a larger conspiracy involving multiple individuals engaged in systematic corruption over a longer period (30.07.2021 – 12.04.022). Therefore, the two FIRs were not identical in scope.

 

2. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while a second FIR is generally not permissible for the same incident, there are exceptions. Referring to Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384, Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292, and Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab (2009) 1 SCC 441, it reiterated that a second FIR is valid when it uncovers a larger conspiracy, involves distinct transactions, or presents a new set of facts.

 

3. The Court emphasized that quashing the second FIR would effectively end an investigation into widespread corruption in the Bio-fuel Authority. It held that such a decision would be against public interest, as it would prevent law enforcement from fully uncovering the extent of the corruption scheme.

 

4. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in applying the “test of sameness” mechanically. While the offences in both FIRs involved bribery, the second FIR was much broader, detailing a pattern of corruption over time rather than a single act.

 

5. The Court ruled that when an investigation reveals a larger criminal conspiracy beyond the facts of the first FIR, a fresh FIR is legally justified. It noted that the second FIR contained new evidence, including intercepted communications and surveillance data, indicating systematic corruption rather than an isolated incident.

 

6. The Supreme Court reinstated FIR No. 131 of 2022 and directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to complete the investigation at the earliest. It also instructed the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to ensure compliance.

 

CONCLUSION:

In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the legality of registering a second First Information Report (FIR) when new information reveals a broader conspiracy beyond the scope of the initial FIR. The Court clarified that while multiple FIRs for the same offence are generally impermissible, a subsequent FIR is justified if it uncovers distinct facts or a larger scheme not covered in the first FIR. This ensures that law enforcement can effectively investigate complex criminal activities without being constrained by earlier, narrower allegations. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling, reinstated the second FIR, and directed the continuation of the investigation into the broader corruption allegations.

 

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer

 

 

 

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled; “Special Law Vs. General Law” can be viewed at the link below:

 

https://youtu.be/IYiWPbILa78