LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SURENDRA SINGH RATHORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 193 : 2025 INSC 248 State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2025) 19 February 2025 [Sanjay Karol* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the registration of the subsequent FIR is legally permissible and whether the High Court was correct in exercising its inherent powers in quashing the same. Headnotes† FIR – Second FIR – Registration of – Permissibility – When – FIR registered against the respondent-Chief Executive Officer-cum- Project Director, Bio-fuel Authority, for allegedly demanding bribe for the sale of bio-diesel and for renewal of the license of the complainant, u/s.7 and 7A of the P.C. Act – Subsequently, second FIR registered against the respondent for taking bribes to grant licenses to run bio-fuel pumps – Middlemen, put on surveillance and details of the alleged conspiracy recorded in detail – Respondent sought quashing of the second FIR – Allowed by the High Court – Justification: Held: Registration of second FIR permissible when it 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 – On facts, the High Court found that the two FIRs were indeed in regard to the same offence and, thus, not maintainable, however, the scope of the two FIRs, are distinct – FIR prior in point of time refers to a particular incident and the action taken therein is * Author 194 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports limited – Second FIR pertains to the larger issue of widespread corruption in the concerned department and, thus, is much larger in its scope than the previous FIR – Quashing of the FIR would stop the investigation into such corruption which would be against the interest of society – Thus, the impugned judgment set aside and the second FIR restored on the file and ordered continuation of investigation. [Paras 9-12] Case Law Cited Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat [2010] 10 SCR 651 : (2010) 12 SCC 254; T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [2001] 3 SCR 942 : (2001) 6 SCC 181; Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. [2012] 13 SCR 901 : (2013) 6 SCC 384; Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi [2001] Supp. 5 SCR 588 : (2002) 1 SCC 714; Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292; Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab [2008] 14 SCR 1049 : (2009) 1 SCC 441; Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1979] 2 SCR 923 : (1979) 2 SCC 322; Surender Kaushik v. State of U.P. [2013] 1 SCR 1053 : (2013) 5 SCC 148; P. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala [2018] 3 SCR 665 : (2018) 4 SCC 579 – referred to. List of Acts Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords FIR; Second FIR; Maintainability of second FIR; Widespread corruption; Inherent powers of the High Court to quash; Quashing of second FIR; Anti-Corruption Bureau; Demand of Bribe; Bio-fuel authority; Abuse of process of law; Chief Executive Officer-cum- Project Director of Bio-fuel Authority; Demand of bribe for sale of bio-diesel; Renewal of license of bio-diesel; Continuation of investigation; Larger conspiracy. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2022 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCRM No. 4366 of 2022 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 195 State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore Appearances for Parties Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G., Ms. Saubhagya Sundriyal, Rustam Singh Chauhan, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Advs. for the Appellant. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Anand Varma, Ayush Gupta, Ranga Sharan, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of final judgment and order dated 9th September, 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B.Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4366 of 2022, whereby the respondent’s prayer for quashing of FIR No.131 of 2022 dated 14th April 2022 registered at District B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.