Case Name: State of Rajasthan v. Surrendra Singh Rathore.
Case Number: SLP(Crl.) No.16358 of 2024
Date: February 19, 2025
Quorum: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sanjay Karol
FACTS OF THE CASE
Surendra Singh Rathore, being the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director of the Bio-fuel Authority of the Government of Rajasthan, was charged with taking bribes from bio-fuel firms to provide approvals and license renewals for the setting up of bio-diesel pumps. A first FIR (No. 123 of 2022) had been lodged on 4 April 2022 on the basis of complaints made by three individuals before the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). Those charges claimed that Rathore had asked for a bribe of ₹2 per liter of bio-diesel and ₹15 lakh in total each month and another ₹5 lakh to extend the license. Yet another FIR (No. 131 of 2022) was submitted on April 14, 2022, following further observations and inquiry yielded an extremely huge network of corruption involving brokers who operated at Rathore’s directions in a bid to facilitate the passage of bribes.
Rathore filed an objection to this second FIR in the Rajasthan High Court, contending that the second FIR was frivolous and redundant of the first FIR. The High Court upheld his protest and, on the grounds of the second FIR being legally not tenable based on being formulated on the same category of complaints on which the first FIR rested.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
1. whether a second FIR can be filed. It reiterated that there is no sanction for more than one FIR on one crime, but one FIR is acceptable if it brings to light other criminality, more extensive conspiracies, or new facts not included in the original complaint.
2. The Supreme Court interrogated if the second FIR had introduced additional criminal elements or copied the facts in the first FIR. The court held that where new facts do disclose multiple conspirators and one grand conspiracy of corruption, there is no impediment under the law in issuing a second FIR.
3. The Court has drawn inspiration from settled precedents like Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., which affirm the registration of independent FIRs where new and different offenses are discovered in the course of investigation.
LEGAL PROVISION:
- Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment of criminal conspiracy
- Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Offence relating to public servant being bribed.
- Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950: Protection of life and personal liberty.
- Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code: Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
ARGUMENTS
Arguments from Petitioner
The State contended that the second FIR was justified in that it exposed a wider, systemic conspiracy of corruption by multiple intermediaries working on Rathore’s behalf to facilitate bribes. It contended that disallowing the second FIR would deny a meaningful investigation into systemic corruption and allow the accused to escape unpunished for the entire course of his act. The State submitted that new facts and new evidence emerged, calling for the registration of a second FIR and inquiry.
Arguments from Respondent
Rathore defended that the second FIR was otiose and abuse of the process of law. His counsel argued that both FIRs bore the same chain of transactions and could have been inquired into under one FIR, rather than registering a second FIR.
The defence raised the doctrine that there can be only one FIR for one offence and claimed that the charges did not reveal any necessarily fresh criminality.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore ruled that a second FIR is valid when it uncovers a larger conspiracy of corruption than the initial charges. It emphasized that procedural barriers should not stand in the way of justice if new evidence comes to light. This ruling-aids anti-corruption drives by allowing authorities to investigate systemic cheating while offering legal safeguards against multiple FIRs for the same crimes. Through references to cases like Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., the Court applied a comprehensive approach towards corruption investigations.
JUDGEMENT
On grounds of law and analysis of facts, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of the State of Rajasthan and held the second FIR revived. The Court sustained the second FIR since it revealed a vast corruption web bigger than the corruption allegations in the first FIR. It held that corruption investigations should not be thwarted by procedural technicalities when new evidence emerges worthy of further legal proceedings. The Court directed:he Anti-Corruption Bureau to conduct its investigation without obstruction and Director General of Police to oversee ensuring compliance with legal procedure.
CONCLUSION
The State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore judgment has established a most important precedent when it comes to the registration of duplicate FIRs in corruption cases. It is clear that second FIRs in respect of the same offense are not permitted, but a second FIR is admissible if new evidence comes to light showing large criminal conspiracy. The judgment defines the judiciary’s function to probe comprehensively corruption without undermining legal rights of an accused against upturning systemically ingrained malpractices in government institutions.
This judgment unites anti-corruption measures by facilitating the authorities to conduct further investigation each time fresh charges are preferred, so that justice is not prevented by procedural technicalities.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY SHIVRANJNI
