Whether the Second FIR is Maintainable in Law?

 

Whether the Second FIR is Maintainable in Law?

Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate

 

In a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra addressed a critical legal issue: whether the registration of a second FIR is maintainable in law. The case, titled State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore, has significant implications for criminal jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving multiple FIRs arising from the same set of circumstances.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against a judgment dated 22.09.2022, passed by the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court had quashed a second FIR registered against the respondent, Surendra Singh Rathore, holding that it was an abuse of the process of law.

Facts of the Case

1. First FIR: Registered on 04.04.2022, the first FIR was filed under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The complaint alleged that the respondent, who was the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director of the Bio-fuel Authority, Government of Rajasthan, had demanded a bribe of Rs. 2 per litre for the sale of bio-diesel, amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs per month, with an additional Rs. 5 lakhs for the renewal of the complainant’s license.
2. Second FIR: Registered on 14.04.2022, the second FIR pertained to incidents that occurred between 30.09.2021 and 12.04.2022. It alleged that the respondent was involved in a larger conspiracy of corruption, accepting bribes to grant licenses for bio-fuel pumps. The FIR detailed extensive surveillance and recorded phone calls that implicated the respondent and other middlemen in the corruption scandal.

The respondent challenged the second FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), arguing that it was an abuse of the legal process since no fresh incident was disclosed, and the allegations were connected to the first FIR. The High Court agreed with the respondent and quashed the second FIR.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court, after examining various precedents and legal principles, set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the second FIR. The Court provided a detailed analysis of the circumstances under which a second FIR can be legally permissible.

Legal Principles on Second FIR

The Supreme Court referred to several landmark judgments, including T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., and Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, to outline the following principles regarding the permissibility of a second FIR:

1. Counter-Complaint or Rival Version: A second FIR is maintainable when it presents a counter-complaint or a rival version of the facts already covered by the first FIR.
2. Different Ambit: Even if the two FIRs arise from the same set of circumstances, they can be maintained if their ambit is different. For instance, if the second FIR deals with a larger conspiracy or a more extensive investigation, it can be considered distinct from the first FIR.
3. Larger Conspiracy: If the investigation reveals that the first FIR is part of a larger conspiracy, a second FIR can be registered to address the broader scope of the crime.
4. New Facts or Circumstances: A second FIR is permissible if new facts or circumstances come to light during the investigation, which were not part of the initial FIR.
5. Separate Incidents: If the incidents are separate, even if the offences are similar or different, a second FIR can be registered.

Application to the Present Case

In the present case, the Supreme Court observed that the first FIR was limited to a specific incident of bribery, whereas the second FIR pertained to a larger issue of widespread corruption within the department. The second FIR was not merely a repetition of the first but involved a broader investigation into a conspiracy that extended beyond the initial allegations.

The Court held that quashing the second FIR would hinder the investigation into widespread corruption, which would be against the interest of society. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the second FIR, directing the Anti-Corruption Bureau to complete the investigation at the earliest.

Conclusion

The judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore clarifies the legal position on the maintainability of a second FIR. It underscores that while the general rule is against registering multiple FIRs for the same incident, there are exceptions where a second FIR can be justified, especially when it involves a larger conspiracy, new facts, or a broader investigation.

This ruling reinforces the importance of ensuring that the investigation process is not stifled by technicalities, particularly in cases involving corruption and other serious offences. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing the rights of the accused with the need for a thorough and fair investigation.

---

References:

1. State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore, Criminal Appeal (Supreme Court of India).
2. T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181.
3. Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384.
4. Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254.