The Supreme Court clarified that while a second FIR for the same offence is not maintainable, a subsequent FIR may be registered if it pertains to a distinct offence. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether a second FIR is legally permissible depends on the nature, scope, and ambit of the allegations in both FIRs, particularly whether the latter discloses new facts, a larger conspiracy, or a separate incident.

The Bench Comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra outlined specific circumstances under which registering a second FIR would be justified:

“ 9.1 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.

9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances.

9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.

9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.

9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.”

The bench heard the State of Rajasthan’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to quash a second FIR against Surendra Singh Rathore, Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director, Bio-fuel Authority, Government of Rajasthan. The first FIR (No. 123 of 2022) was filed after three individuals—Vipin Parihar (Chief Marketing Officer, Fern Bio-fuel Pvt. Ltd.), Deven Shah (his business partner), and Satya Narayan Saini (Kusum Petro Chemicals)—lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), alleging that the Respondent had demanded a bribe of ₹15 lakh per month for approving bio-diesel sales, along with an additional ₹5 lakh for license renewal. Subsequently, an ACB surveillance operation conducted between September 30, 2021, and April 12, 2022, uncovered a larger bribery network involving the Respondent and middlemen, leading to the registration of a second FIR (No. 131 of 2022).

The Respondent challenged this FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that it was repetitive and amounted to an abuse of legal process. The High Court accepted this argument and quashed the second FIR, prompting the State to appeal before the Supreme Court. In a judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol,the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had failed to properly consider the scope and nature of the allegations. Since the second FIR addressed a distinct and broader corruption conspiracy, it was legally valid and should not have been dismissed.

“As recorded supra, 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, is distinct. The FIR prior in point of time refers to a particular incident and the action taken therein is limited. 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.” the court

The Court referred to multiple cases supporting the registration of a second FIR for a distinct and separate offence. One such case was Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384, where the Court thoroughly examined the concept of a second FIR.

“It will, thus, be appropriate to follow the settled principle that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR could be registered.”the Court stated in Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Emphasizing that quashing the FIR would hinder the investigation into corruption and go against public interest, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s decision, which had dismissed the second FIR against the Respondent.

Case Title: State Of Rajasthan Versus Surendra Singh Rathore.,SLP(Crl.) 16358/2024

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G., Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR & Ors

For Respondent(s) : :Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Mr. Ayush Gupta & Ors