Supreme Court Summarises Principles Regarding Permissibility Of Registration Of Second FIR
The Supreme Court allowed a Criminal Appeal of the State against the Rajasthan High Court's Judgment allowing the accused's prayer for quashing an FIR.
The Supreme Court has summarised the principles regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR (First Information Report).
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by the State against the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court by which the accused’s prayer for quashing an FIR was allowed.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra highlighted the following principles that emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR –
1. When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.
2. When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances.
3. When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.
4. When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.
5. Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.
The sole question for consideration before the Bench was whether the registration of the subsequent FIR is legally permissible and whether the High Court was correct in exercising its inherent powers in quashing the same.
AAG Shiv Mangal Sharma appeared for the Appellant/State while Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the Respondent/Accused.
Brief Facts
Three persons lodged a Complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to the effect that the Respondent-accused who was 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. An FIR was registered against the accused under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (PC Act). Thereafter, a second FIR was lodged for the incidents when a Constable with the ACB brought information to the notice of DSP (Deputy Superintendent of Police) that amongst other persons, the accused was indulging in taking bribes to grant licenses to run bio-fuel pumps.
This FIR running into nearly 30 pages included the alleged conspiracy of which the accused 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. Being aggrieved by the registration of second FIR, the accused preferred a Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). Accordingly, the High Court held that the second FIR was an abuse of the process of law and quashed the same. Hence, the State filed an Appeal before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “… the High Court found that the two FIRs were indeed in regard to the same offence and, therefore, not maintainable, however, in our view the scope of the two FIRs, as already referred to in para 3 supra, are distinct. The FIR prior in point of time refers to a particular incident and the action taken therein is limited.”
The Court further noted that the second FIR pertains to the larger issue of widespread corruption in the concerned department and, therefore, is much larger in its scope than the previous FIR.
“Quashing of the FIR would nip the investigation into such corruption, in the bud. The same would be against the interest of society”, it added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and restored the second FIR.
Cause Title- State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 248)
Appearance:
Appellant: AAG Shiv Mangal Sharma, AOR Nidhi Jaswal, Advocates Saubhagya Sundriyal, and Rustam Singh Chauhan.
Respondent: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, AOR Anand Varma, Advocates Ayush Gupta, and Ranga Sharan.
