Supreme Court Ruling: When Is a Second FIR Allowed?

When Is a Second FIR Allowed?

The Supreme Court recently laid down principles regarding the permissibility of registering a second First Information Report (FIR) for the same incident or related circumstances. In State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore, a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra examined whether multiple FIRs can be lodged in cases involving broader allegations beyond the initial complaint.

Supreme Court of India ruling on the legality of a second FIR, highlighting key legal principles and conditions.

Five Key Conditions for a Second FIR

1. Counter-Complaint or Rival Version – If the second FIR presents a different perspective on the same facts as the first FIR.

2. Different Ambit – If the scope of the second FIR extends beyond the first, even if both arise from the same circumstances.

3. Larger Conspiracy – If the investigation reveals that the initial complaint is part of a broader conspiracy.

4. New Evidence – If additional facts or circumstances come to light through further investigation.

5. Separate Incidents – If the subsequent FIR pertains to a distinct incident, even if the offences are similar or different.

Background of the Case

Surendra Singh Rathore, a senior official at Rajasthan’s Bio-Fuel Authority, was accused of corruption. The first FIR, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleged that he demanded a bribe of ₹2 per litre on bio-diesel sales, amounting to ₹15 lakh per month, along with ₹5 lakh for renewing licenses. This complaint was based on an incident that occurred on April 4, 2022.

A second FIR was filed on April 14, 2022, based on claims that Rathore had been taking bribes between September 30, 2021, and April 12, 2022, to grant bio-fuel pump licenses. This complaint came from Shyam Prakash, a constable from the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), who alleged that Rathore was running a widespread bribery scheme.

High Court’s Decision and Supreme Court’s Intervention

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that the second FIR was an abuse of the legal process and quashed it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It also observed that prior permission was necessary to proceed against Rathore, making the second FIR invalid.

However, the State of Rajasthan appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court found that the second FIR addressed a broader issue of systemic corruption within the department and was distinct in scope from the first FIR.

Supreme Court’s Justification

Justice Karol, who authored the judgment, criticized the High Court for failing to examine the distinct nature of the allegations. The Supreme Court referenced Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384, where it was held that while two FIRs cannot be registered for the same offence, a second FIR is valid if:

• The incidents are separate.

• The allegations indicate a broader conspiracy or new evidence.

• There are distinct legal and factual grounds for the second FIR.

In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that "When is a second FIR allowed?" depends on whether it meets the outlined legal criteria and serves the broader interests of justice.

Conclusion

The ruling clarifies the circumstances under which a second FIR can be registered. If the subsequent FIR involves distinct offences, new facts, or a broader conspiracy, it is legally permissible. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to combating corruption and ensuring that investigations into serious offences are not curtailed prematurely.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI

Are you a legal professional? Stay ahead with our innovative Lawttorney.AI tool. Streamline your legal processes, enhance productivity, and gain a competitive edge. Experience the future of legal technology—try our free Webinar session today!