LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/state-of-rajasthan-vs-surendra-singh-rathore-20250219/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

State of Rajasthan vs Surendra Singh Rathore

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
19 February 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2025
Result
Allowed
Bench
Sanjay Karol, Prashant Kumar Mishra
Citation
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 193 : 2025 INSC 248
Acts & Sections
Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act… IPC CrPC
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 193 : 2025 INSC 248
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.
Headnote

FIR – Second FIR – Registration of – Permissibility – When – FIR registered against the respondent-Chief Executive Officer-cumProject 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 countercomplaint 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 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]

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-cumProject Director of Bio-fuel Authority · Demand of bribe for sale of bio-diesel · Renewal of license of bio-diesel · Continuation of investigation · Larger conspiracy

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

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 Bikaner with Police Station Pradhan Arakshi Kendra, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 20181 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal C
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →