In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the legal grounds under which a second First Information Report (FIR) can be registered in criminal cases. The case, State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore (Criminal Appeal No. [2025 INSC 248]), was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. The Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court ruling that had quashed a second FIR against a government official accused of corruption. Holding that the second FIR was legally sustainable as it uncovered a larger conspiracy, the Supreme Court reinstated the FIR and ordered the continuation of the investigation.
Case Background
The case revolved around Surendra Singh Rathore, the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director of the Bio-fuel Authority, Government of Rajasthan. Rathore was accused of demanding bribes from bio-fuel businesses in exchange for granting and renewing licenses for running bio-diesel pumps.
The case began when a complaint was lodged with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jaipur, by three individuals:
– Vipin Parihar, Chief Marketing Officer of Fern Bio-fuel Private Limited
– Deven Shah, Business Partner
– Satya Narayan Saini, S.D. of Kusum Petro Chemicals
The complainants alleged that Rathore had demanded a bribe at a rate of ₹2 per litre of bio-diesel, amounting to ₹15 lakh per month, along with an additional ₹5 lakh for license renewal.
On April 4, 2022, the first FIR (No. 123 of 2022) was registered under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, against Rathore.
Subsequently, a second FIR (No. 131 of 2022) was lodged on April 14, 2022, after further investigation revealed a broader corruption network. Surveillance and intelligence reports indicated that middlemen were facilitating bribes on behalf of Rathore for issuing and renewing bio-fuel licenses.
Rathore challenged the second FIR in the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that it was impermissible since it arose from the same allegations as the first FIR. The High Court quashed the second FIR, ruling that it was “an abuse of the process of law.” Aggrieved by this, the State of Rajasthan appealed to the Supreme Court.
Important Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was:
1. Can a second FIR be registered for the same set of allegations?
The respondent contended that the second FIR was merely an extension of the first and that any further investigation should have been conducted under the first FIR rather than registering a separate one.
2. Does the second FIR disclose a larger conspiracy?
The appellant argued that the second FIR was not merely repetitive but revealed a widespread corruption network involving multiple intermediaries, which justified a separate and expanded investigation.
3. What are the judicial precedents governing multiple FIRs?
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s decision was consistent with past rulings such as:
– T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) – Held that multiple FIRs for the same incident are impermissible.
– Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) – Held that separate FIRs can be filed if they disclose distinct offences.
– Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) – Explained that a second FIR is valid if it pertains to a different transaction.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
In reversing the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of allowing a second FIR when a larger conspiracy is uncovered.
Quoting T.T. Antony, the bench reiterated:
“Subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident is an abuse of power. However, if a second FIR reveals new dimensions of a case, it is legally sustainable.”
The Court further distinguished between an identical FIR and an FIR revealing additional criminality, stating:
“Where the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, or where it discloses a broader conspiracy, its registration is legally sound.”
The Court relied on Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) to clarify:
“If the second FIR uncovers an additional crime or a distinct offence, it must be treated as a fresh case, not an extension of the first.”
Rejecting the High Court’s findings, the bench observed:
“Quashing the second FIR would nip the investigation into systemic corruption in the bud, shielding the accused from prosecution for crimes beyond the first FIR.”
Decision of the Supreme Court
After considering the arguments and precedents, the Supreme Court concluded that the second FIR was legally valid, as it unveiled a broader corruption racket involving multiple actors.
The High Court’s ruling was set aside, and the Supreme Court restored the second FIR (No. 131 of 2022).
The Court directed:
The Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, to expedite the investigation.
The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to ensure compliance with the Court’s directives.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinforcing that a second FIR can be registered when new facts emerge, exposing a larger conspiracy.
