Multiple FIRs in Corruption allegation case | Latest Supreme Court Judgement Summary Analysis

DRAFT – Detailed Summary of Supreme Court Judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore
Case Details:
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Judges: Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 16358 of 2024
• Date of Judgment: February 19, 2025
Background:
The State of Rajasthan challenged a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, which had quashed FIR No. 131 of 2022 filed against Surendra Singh Rathore, an officer in the Bio-fuel Authority, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 and Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy).
The case involved allegations of bribery against the respondent, who was accused of demanding ₹15 lakhs per month as a bribe for bio-diesel sales and an additional ₹5 lakhs for license renewal.
Legal Issue:
• Whether the second FIR (No. 131 of 2022) was legally maintainable or should be quashed as per Section 482 CrPC on the ground of being duplicative of an earlier FIR (No. 123 of 2022).
Arguments by the Respondent (Accused):
1. Two FIRs for the same offence: The second FIR (No. 131) was merely an extension of the first FIR (No. 123), making it illegal.
2. Violation of legal principles:
o T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001): A second FIR for the same incident is impermissible.
o Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat (2010): If two FIRs relate to the same transaction, the second FIR fails the “test of sameness”.
3. Sanction not obtained: No sanction was obtained under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, making the investigation void.
High Court Ruling:
• The Rajasthan High Court quashed the second FIR, holding that:
o Both FIRs pertained to the same offence.
o Prior permission was required for investigation, which was not taken.
o The second FIR was an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.
Supreme Court’s Analysis & Decision:
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court and restored the second FIR, holding:
1. Second FIRs are permissible in specific situations:
o When the offences are part of a larger conspiracy.
o When new facts emerge beyond the first FIR.
o When multiple incidents occur over different time frames.
2. Difference in Scope:
o The first FIR (No. 123) was incident-specific (pertaining to a bribe demand on April 4, 2022).
o The second FIR (No. 131) uncovered a broader corruption racket within the Bio-fuel Authority.
3. Judicial Precedents:
o Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013): Second FIR can be registered if new facts emerge.
o Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi (2002): Rival versions of an incident can result in separate FIRs.
o Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004): Counter-complaints or larger conspiracies justify additional FIRs.
4. Public Interest:
o Quashing the second FIR would halt a crucial investigation into systematic corruption, which is against societal interest.
Final Verdict:
• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order.
• FIR No. 131 of 2022 was restored.
• The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, was directed to expedite the investigation.
Conclusion:
The judgment reaffirmed that multiple FIRs can exist if they cover distinct aspects of a larger offence, especially in corruption cases. The ruling prevents individuals involved in large-scale corruption from escaping prosecution due to technicalities.

source