Supreme Court Restored Second FIR Alleging Widespread Corruption, Directs Prompt Investigation

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the State of Rajasthan’s appeal challenging the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench order that quashed FIR No.131 of 2022 registered by the Anti‑Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, against the respondent, an officer of the Bio‑fuel Authority. The matter arose from criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 120‑B IPC, and involved the legal permissibility of registering a subsequent FIR where an earlier FIR in related transactions already existed.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and restored FIR No.131 of 2022, directing expeditious completion of the investigation and calling upon the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to ensure compliance. The bench observed that second FIRs are not ipso facto impermissible and reiterated established principles governing subsequent FIRs; it found that the second FIR in this case was broader in scope and alleged a larger conspiracy that could not properly be contained within the earlier first FIR. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR: (i) when the second FIR is a counter‑complaint or presents a rival version; (ii) when the ambit of the two FIRs is different though arising from the same circumstances; (iii) when investigation reveals that the earlier FIR is part of a larger conspiracy; (iv) when investigation brings to light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances; and (v) where the incident is separate though offences may be similar or different." The Court therefore concluded that quashing would "nip the investigation into such corruption, in the bud" and would be against the public interest.

Background

The dispute arose after multiple complaints reached the Anti‑Corruption Bureau. An initial complaint alleged that the respondent demanded a bribe of Rs.2 per litre of bio‑diesel (amounting to about Rs.15 lakh per month) and further sums for licence renewal; this resulted in FIR No.123 of 2022. A subsequent FIR, numbered 131 of 2022 and spanning nearly 30 pages, narrated allegations of a broader conspiracy involving middlemen, surveillance reports, call records and incidents between September 2021 and April 2022. The respondent moved under Section 482 CrPC to quash the second FIR on grounds that it disclosed no fresh incident, duplicated allegations in the first FIR, was an abuse of process, and that prior sanction required under the Prevention of Corruption Act had not been obtained.

The High Court allowed the quash petition, holding that the two FIRs related to the "same offence" and that the second FIR could have been investigated as part of the first, describing the second FIR as "an abuse of the process of law." The Court below also relied on precedent suggesting that successive FIRs touching the same transaction may invite exercise of inherent jurisdiction. On appeal, this Court reviewed the jurisprudence on second FIRs — including T.T. Antony, Anju Chaudhary, Kari Choudhary, Upkar Singh and Babubhai — and distilled the circumstances in which a later FIR could be permissible. Applying those principles to the record, the Supreme Court found that the second FIR alleged a wider scheme of corruption and disclosed material beyond the limited scope of the prior FIR; therefore it was maintainable. The Court restored FIR No.131 of 2022 and directed that the investigation be completed at the earliest. The appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 248 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.16358 of 2024) Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not recorded in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not recorded in the judgment]