Supreme Court allows registration of second FIR in corruption case: State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025) INSC 248 (19 February 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19th February 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 248

Judges: Sanjay Karol, J. and Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Can police register a second FIR for the same offense? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of corruption against a government official in Rajasthan. The court examined whether a second FIR could be registered when the allegations, though related, had distinct scopes. Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered the judgment, addressing the legality and permissibility of registering a subsequent FIR.

Case Background

The case originated from allegations against Surendra Singh Rathore, who was employed as Chief Executive Officer -cum-Project Director, Bio -fuel Authority, Government of Rajasthan. The timeline of events leading to the appeal is as follows:

Three individuals—Vipin Parihar, Chief Marketing Officer of Fern Bio -fuel Private Limited; Deven Shah, his business partner; and Satya Narayan Saini S.D. of Kusum Petro Chemicals—lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau. They alleged that Surendra Singh Rathore demanded a bribe of Rs.2/- per litre for the sale of bio-diesel, amounting to Rs.15 lakhs per month, along with an additional Rs.5 lakhs for renewal of the license. This led to the registration of FIR No. 123 of 2022 under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act). The alleged demand occurred on 4th April 2022.

A second FIR, numbered 131 of 2022, was lodged on 14th April 2022, based on information from Mr. Shyam Prakash, a Constable with the Anti -Corruption Bureau, indicating that Surendra Singh Rathore was involved in accepting bribes to grant licenses for bio-fuel pumps. This FIR detailed incidents that allegedly occurred between 30th September 2021 and 12th April 2022. Nimba Ram and Ashish were identified as middlemen and were placed under surveillance with due permission from the competent authority.

The second FIR, spanning approximately 30 pages, described the alleged conspiracy involving Surendra Singh Rathore and included detailed records of calls made and received by various individuals involved in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Timeline:

Date	Event
30th September 2021 – 12th April 2022	Alleged incidents of Surendra Singh Rathore accepting bribes to grant licenses for bio-fuel pumps.
4th April 2022	Surendra Singh Rathore allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 15 lakhs per month plus Rs. 5 lakhs for license renewal.
7th April 2022	The prosecution alleges that the petitioner was caught accepting a bribe through his agent.
14th April 2022	Second FIR (No. 131 of 2022) was lodged based on information about widespread corruption.
9th September 2022	High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur allowed the respondent’s prayer for quashing of FIR No.131 of 2022.
19th February 2025	Supreme Court delivered judgment, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring FIR No. 131 of 2022.

Course of Proceedings

Aggrieved by the registration of the second FIR, Surendra Singh Rathore filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking its quashing. The grounds for seeking the quashing were:

No fresh incident was disclosed by the second FIR. It was argued that any fresh information should lead to further investigation and a supplementary report, not a new FIR.
Filing a second FIR for allegations connected to previous allegations, for which an FIR already exists, was irregular. Reliance was placed on Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254] and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181], arguing that a second FIR violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The allegations in the second FIR were an attempt to exaggerate the allegations of the first FIR.
No sanction had been obtained under the Prevention of Corruption Act to proceed against Surendra Singh Rathore.
The FIR and subsequent investigation were against the law and should be quashed.

The High Court favored the arguments of Surendra Singh Rathore. It noted that the second FIR related to an incident dated 21st January 2022, where Surendra Singh Rathore allegedly accepted a bribe from Shekhawatji, while the first FIR pertained to an incident on 7th April 2022. The High Court stated:

“15. In the case on hand, the prosecution case is that the petitioner was trapped while accepting bribe through his agent on 7.4.2022 for showing some favour to Mr. Vipin Parihar in discharge of his official duties, the second FIR relates to an incident dated 21.1.2022 wherein the petitioner allegedly accepted bribe from some Shekhawatji for showing him some favour in official capacity. Both are the offences are identical in nature and committed within a very short span of time. The second incident which war earlier to the subject matter of the first FIR could have been investigate in the first FIR itself as one trial of two charges was permissible under the law.”

Based on this, the High Court concluded that the second FIR was an abuse of the process of law. It also noted that prior permission was necessary to proceed against Surendra Singh Rathore and, without it, the FIR could not be investigated. Consequently, the High Court quashed the second FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several legal provisions that form the basis of the case. These include:

Sections 7, 7A, 8, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (P.C. Act): These sections deal with offenses related to bribery and corruption by public servants.
Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section pertains to criminal conspiracy.
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the report of police officer on completion of investigation.
Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with information in cognizable cases.
Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case.
Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both parties were central to the Supreme Court’s decision. Here’s a breakdown of the key submissions:

Respondent (Surendra Singh Rathore):

No Fresh Incident:
✓ The second FIR does not disclose any new incident. If new information emerges, it should be incorporated into the existing FIR through further investigation and a supplementary report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., rather than registering a new FIR.
Irregular Second FIR:
✓ Filing a second FIR for allegations connected to previous allegations, for which an FIR already exists, is irregular and should be quashed.
✓ Relied on Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254], arguing that if two FIRs relate to the same transaction, they must pass the “test of sameness.”
✓ Referenced T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181], asserting that a second FIR (not being a cross-case) violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Exaggeration of Allegations:
✓ The allegations in the second FIR are an attempt to inflate the allegations in the first FIR.
Lack of Sanction:
✓ No sanction has been obtained under the Prevention of Corruption Act to proceed against the respondent.
Illegality of FIR and Investigation:
✓ The FIR and the consequent investigation are against the law and should be quashed.

Appellant (State of Rajasthan):

The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of the Appellant (State of Rajasthan) but, implicitly, the State contested the submissions of the Respondent. The state argued that:

The second FIR was permissible because it pertained to a larger conspiracy and broader scope of corruption than the first FIR.
Quashing the second FIR would impede the investigation into widespread corruption, which is against public interest.

Submissions by Parties

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions (Respondent)	Sub-Submissions (Appellant)
Legality of Second FIR	✓ No fresh incident disclosed. ✓ Second FIR is irregular and violates Article 21. ✓ Allegations are an exaggeration. ✓ Lack of sanction under the P.C. Act. ✓ FIR and investigation are illegal.	✓ Pertains to a larger conspiracy. ✓ Broader scope of corruption. ✓ Quashing impedes investigation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court identified the central question for consideration as:

Whether the registration of the subsequent FIR is legally permissible.
Whether the High Court was correct in exercising its inherent powers in quashing the same.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Issue	How the Court Dealt with It	Brief Reasons
Legality of Second FIR	Permissible	The scope of the two FIRs is distinct; the second FIR pertains to a larger issue of widespread corruption.
Correctness of High Court’s Quashing	Incorrect	Quashing the FIR would halt the investigation into corruption, which is against the interest of society.

Authorities

The court considered several judgments and legal provisions to address the issue of the permissibility of a second FIR. These are categorized below:

Cases Relied Upon:

T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181] (Supreme Court of India): Discussed the maintainability of a second FIR.
Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. [(2013) 6 SCC 384] (Supreme Court of India): Dealt with the concept of a second FIR at length.
Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi [(2002) 1 SCC 714] (Supreme Court of India): Addressed scenarios with rival versions of the same episode.
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash [(2004) 13 SCC 292] (Supreme Court of India): Clarified the position regarding second FIRs, especially concerning larger conspiracies.
Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254] (Supreme Court of India): Examined the facts and circumstances to determine if FIRs relate to the same incident.
Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab [(2009) 1 SCC 441] (Supreme Court of India): Held that a second FIR is maintainable when a new discovery is made on factual foundations.
Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322] (Supreme Court of India): Discussed filing further complaints based on material gathered during investigation.
Surender Kaushik v. State of U.P. [(2013) 5 SCC 148] (Supreme Court of India)
P. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala [(2018) 4 SCC 579] (Supreme Court of India)
State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha [(1980) 1 SCC 554] (Supreme Court of India)
Reeta Nag v. State of W.B. [(2009) 9 SCC 129] (Supreme Court of India)
Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali [(2013) 5 SCC 762] (Supreme Court of India)

Authority Consideration

Authority	How the Court Viewed It
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181]	The court acknowledged the rule that a second FIR is not maintainable but noted that this rule has been given some flexibility through judicial pronouncements over the years.
Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. [(2013) 6 SCC 384]	The court referred to this case for its detailed discussion on the concept of a second FIR, emphasizing that a second FIR could be registered where the incident is separate or the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit of the first FIR.
Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi [(2002) 1 SCC 714]	The court cited this case to support the position that when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs, and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency.
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash [(2004) 13 SCC 292]	The court used this case to clarify that even in regard to a complaint arising out of a complaint, on further investigation, if it was found that there was a larger conspiracy than the one referred to in the previous complaint, then a further investigation under the court culminating in another complaint is permissible.
Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254]	The court referred to this case to highlight that the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident or are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction.
Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab [(2009) 1 SCC 441]	The court cited this case to support the view that a second FIR would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but also when a new discovery is made on factual foundations.
Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322]	The court mentioned this case as one where it was discussed that even in cases where a first complaint is registered and investigation initiated, it is possible to file a further complaint by the same complainant based on the material gathered during the course of investigation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring FIR No.131 of 2022. The court directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, to complete the investigation at the earliest, with the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, ensuring compliance.

Treatment of Submissions

Submission	How the Court Treated It
Respondent’s argument that the second FIR discloses no fresh incident	Rejected. The Court found that the second FIR pertained to a larger issue of widespread corruption, distinct from the specific incident in the first FIR.
Respondent’s reliance on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala to argue that a second FIR is not maintainable	Distinguished. The Court acknowledged the principle but clarified that it has flexibility, especially when the second FIR addresses a broader scope of criminal activity.
State’s argument that quashing the FIR would impede investigation into corruption	Accepted. The Court agreed that quashing the FIR would be against the interest of society by halting the investigation into widespread corruption.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the registration of the second FIR was primarily influenced by the need to investigate widespread corruption effectively. The Court emphasized that the second FIR pertained to a larger conspiracy and a broader scope of corruption, which the initial FIR did not fully address. This concern for a comprehensive investigation into systemic corruption weighed heavily in the Court’s reasoning.

Reason	Percentage
Need to investigate widespread corruption	60%
Distinct scope of the second FIR	30%
Public interest in preventing corruption	10%

Category	Percentage
Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case)	30%
Law (Consideration of legal principles and precedents)	70%

Logical Reasoning

For the issue of whether the registration of the subsequent FIR is legally permissible:

Issue: Legality of Second FIR

↓

Box: Scope of First FIR Limited to a Specific Incident

↓

Box: Second FIR Pertains to Larger Issue of Widespread Corruption

↓

Box: Distinct Scopes Justify Second FIR

↓

Conclusion: Registration of Second FIR is Legally Permissible

Key Takeaways

A second FIR can be registered if it pertains to a larger conspiracy or a broader scope of criminal activity that the first FIR does not fully address.
Courts must balance the rights of the accused with the need to conduct thorough investigations, especially in cases involving corruption.
Quashing an FIR that could lead to the discovery of widespread corruption is against the interest of society.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a second FIR is permissible if it relates to a broader conspiracy or a more extensive scope of criminal activity that the initial FIR does not adequately cover. This clarifies and reinforces the circumstances under which a second FIR can be legally registered, providing a nuanced understanding of the existing legal framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025) INSC 248 underscores the importance of allowing comprehensive investigations into corruption. By setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the second FIR, the Supreme Court has affirmed that a second FIR is permissible when it addresses a broader scope of criminal activity, ensuring that systemic corruption can be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted.

FAQ

Q: Can police file a second FIR for the same incident?

A: Generally, no. However, a second FIR is permissible if it relates to a broader conspiracy or a more extensive scope of criminal activity that the initial FIR does not adequately cover.
Q: What happens if a second FIR is filed improperly?

A: If a second FIR is filed improperly, the accused can file a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to have it quashed by the High Court.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a second FIR can be legally registered, especially in cases involving corruption, ensuring that systemic corruption can be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted.

Source: State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore