Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court  has restored an FIR registered against a senior Rajasthan government official accused of corruption. The court set aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision to quash the FIR, holding that the second FIR was distinct in its scope and pertained to a larger investigation into widespread corruption in the concerned department.

The case pertains to allegations against Surendra Singh Rathore, Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director of the Bio-fuel Authority, Government of Rajasthan. The case originated when representatives of bio-fuel companies, including Vipin Parihar, Chief Marketing Officer of Fern Bio-fuel Private Limited, business partner Deven Shah, and Satya Narayan Saini of Kusum Petro Chemicals, lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau. They alleged that the respondent demanded a bribe of Rs. 15 lakh per month for the sale of bio-diesel and an additional Rs. 5 lakh for the renewal of their license. The complaint led to the registration of FIR No. 123 of 2022 under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, on 4th April 2022.

A second FIR, numbered 131 of 2022, was subsequently filed on 14th April 2022. This FIR detailed allegations that the respondent, along with certain middlemen identified as Nimba Ram and Ashish, was involved in facilitating bribery for obtaining licenses to operate bio-fuel pumps. The case records indicate that the incidents covered under the second FIR took place between 30th September 2021 and 12th April 2022. The investigation included surveillance records and call recordings, which, according to the prosecution, pointed to a wider conspiracy involving multiple actors within the licensing framework.

The second FIR, extending beyond the first, also contained detailed transcripts of intercepted communications allegedly demonstrating how bribes were solicited, negotiated, and received. Witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code corroborated these allegations, with multiple complainants detailing their interactions with the accused and middlemen. The authorities argued that the second FIR was necessary to bring to light additional facts and ensure a comprehensive investigation.

The respondent challenged the second FIR before the Rajasthan High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The primary arguments made by the respondent included:

• The second FIR did not disclose any new incident and was related to the same allegations as the first FIR.

• Filing a second FIR for the same set of facts contravened the legal principle that only one FIR can be registered for a single transaction.

• The second FIR was an attempt to expand the scope of the existing allegations beyond permissible limits.

• The absence of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act made the investigation unlawful.

The High Court agreed with these arguments and quashed the second FIR, stating that multiple FIRs arising from the same set of transactions were not legally tenable. The High Court also ruled that sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was a necessary prerequisite.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed this decision, holding that the two FIRs were distinct. The court observed that while the first FIR was confined to a specific instance of bribe demand, the second FIR extended to an alleged systemic corruption involving multiple parties and a longer time span. The judgment noted: "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 Supreme Court also referenced prior rulings, including T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., which establish that multiple FIRs can be registered if they pertain to different transactions or uncover new evidence. The court observed: "Quashing of the FIR would nip the investigation into such corruption, in the bud. The same would be against the interest of society."

Additionally, the court examined legal precedents regarding the maintainability of successive FIRs and ruled that where new discoveries arise, further investigation is warranted. The judgment cited Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, which held that the emergence of additional evidence justifies the registration of a fresh FIR if the facts pertain to a broader conspiracy rather than a single isolated incident.

The Supreme Court distinguished between cases where a second FIR is impermissible because it overlaps entirely with an earlier FIR and situations where new allegations expand the investigation beyond its original scope. The judgment stated that second FIRs are maintainable if they expose new facts, involve different accused persons, or point to a wider conspiracy beyond the limited scope of the first FIR.

The Supreme Court directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, to restore FIR No. 131 of 2022 and proceed with its investigation. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, was instructed to ensure timely and thorough compliance with the investigative requirements. The court stated that corruption cases involving public officials demand rigorous inquiry to uphold accountability and public interest.

Further, the court directed that the investigation be conducted expeditiously, with all electronic and documentary evidence being duly scrutinized. The investigating agency was advised to ensure the collection of all financial transactions linked to the alleged bribery network, including banking records and forensic examination of digital communication between the accused parties.

Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 16358 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

[Read/Download order]