Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently held that a second FIR can be registered in a case when the ambit of the two FIRs is different, even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra highlighted the principles that emerged regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR following a series of judgments.

It said two FIRs can be lodged, i e, 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; when the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances; when investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy; when investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances; and where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.

The court explained the legal principles while setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's judgment of September 9, 2022, which quashed an FIR registered on April 14, 2022, on a plea by respondent Surendra Singh Rathore.

"Quashing of the FIR would nip the investigation into such corruption in the bud. The same would be against the interest of society," the bench said.

A complaint was lodged with the Anti-Corruption Bureau to the effect that the respondent, employed as Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director, Bio-fuel Authority, Rajasthan government, allegedly demanded a bribe at the rate of Rs 2 per litre for the sale of bio-diesel, i.e., Rs 15 lakhs per month with a further Rs 5 lakhs for renewal of the license of the complainant. This FIR was registered under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This demand took place on April 4, 2022.

A second FIR was lodged on April 24, 2022 for the incidents which took place between September 30, 2021 to April 12, 2022 when one constable with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, brought information to the notice of the DSP, that amongst other persons the respondent was indulging in taking bribes to grant licenses to run bio-fuel pumps.

The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the high court. He contended no fresh incident was disclosed in second FIR, which was in respect of the allegations that were connected to previous allegations, for which an FIR already stood registered. This FIR would be irregular and deserved to be quashed.

The high court, in its impugned judgment, held the second FIR was an abuse of the process of law. It also found that prior permission was a must and without it, this FIR could not have been investigated. It quashed the second FIR.

The court examined the question whether the registration of the subsequent FIR was permissible and if the high court was correct in exercising its inherent power to quash it.

Court noted in TT Antony Vs State of Kerala (2001), it was held second FIR in a case which is not a cross-case, violates Article 21 of the Constitution and thus the second FIR is not maintainable.

The bench, however, said, "This Rule, however, over the years through judicial pronouncements, has lent some flexibility."

In Anju Chaudhary Vs State of UP (2013), the top court said, 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 bench pointed out.

In Kari Choudhary Vs Sita Devi (2002), the apex court held 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, the bench added.

A three-judge bench of the court in Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash (2004) has held if the law laid down by the top court in TT Antony case (2001) is to be accepted as holding that a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter-complaint is prohibited then, such conclusion would lead to serious consequence.

In Babu Bhai Vs State of Gujarat (2010), this court held the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed, the bench highlighted. 

In Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs State of Punjab (2009), this court held that when a new discovery like larger conspiracy is made, the second FIR would be maintainable.

Coming back to the facts of the matter, the bench noted, 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 are 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 bench said.

Court allowed the Rajasthan government's appeal and restored the second FIR on the file of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur.

"We direct the completion of the investigation at the earliest. Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to ensure compliance with the directions," the bench ordered.

Case Title: State of Rajasthan Vs Surendra Singh Rathore