What are the grounds for lodging a Second F.I.R ?

In a Landmark ruling the Apex Court recently reaffirmed its stance on validating the prospect of filing a second FIR against the same parties based on the same allegations but on different scopes. Here are some key findings of the case.

1. A Brief Background of the Case

The first FIR (No. 123/2022) was registered against a government official Surendra Singh Rathore for allegedly demanding a bribe of ₹15 lakh per month and ₹5 lakh for license renewal from bio-fuel businessmen.

Later on, a second FIR (No. 131/2022) was lodged based on a police surveillance which unveiled a larger corruption network. The said transactions were between September 2021 – April 2022, and involved multiple transactions and middlemen executing such bribes for bio-fuel pump licenses.

With regards to the second FIR, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the second FIR, ruling that it was based on the same allegations as the first FIR. The issue was hence pleaded before the Supreme Court.

2. Key Legal Principles Highlighted

While deciding this case, the Apex Court pondered over several legal principles to provide for the basis of the adjudication of the given case. These are discussed as follows:

i. The Doctrine of Sameness – the test for quashing the Second FIR

1. The doctrine mentions that if two FIRs relate to the same transaction, the second FIR is not valid. However, if the second FIR is of the character that it reveals a broader scope, new discoveries, or separate incidents, it is maintainable.
2. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) that a second FIR is not maintainable if it points to the same offense unless it is a cross-case.

ii. Conditions When a Second FIR is Maintainable

The Court cleared its stance where a second FIR is legally permissible:

1. Counter-Complaint by a Different Party

Mentioning the precedent of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004), the Supreme Court held that a counter-FIR by an aggrieved party is valid, provided it presents a different version of the same incident.

• Larger Conspiracy or New Facts Revealed in Investigation

Citing the case Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab (2009), the Apex Court in the given case ruled that a second FIR is valid if new facts come to light or if the earlier FIR failed to investigate a larger conspiracy.

• Different Scope of Investigation Despite Same Circumstances

Referring to the case Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013), the Court stated that while multiple FIRs for the same incident are prohibited, a second FIR is valid if it relates to different offenses or a larger context of the crime.

• New Discovery Made During Investigation:

While mentioning the precedent in Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi (2002), the Court affirmed its stance when it ruled that when an investigation reveals new suspects or crimes not covered in the first FIR, a second FIR can be filed.

• If the Second FIR Covers a Broader Period of Criminal Activity:

Citing the case Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010), the Supreme Court further noted that if a new FIR pertains to a larger conspiracy spanning multiple dates and actors, it is valid, even if it overlaps with an earlier FIR.

3. Analysis of the Present Case

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that the scope of the two FIRs was different. The first FIR referred to a specific bribery demand from one complainant. On the other hand, the second FIR pointed out an even larger corruption network, as mentioned in the above segments. The Apex Court found that the High Court erroneously applied the “test of sameness” by misinterpreting the fact that the FIRs correlate to the same offense. However, the second FIR encompassed a larger issue and exposed systemic corruption. The Court clarified that there was no double jeopardy since the second FIR did not subject the accused to prosecution for the same offense but instead expanded the investigation into a larger conspiracy.

4. Key Judicial Precedents Relied Upon

Cases Against Second FIRs (Applying “Test of Sameness”)

Case	Principle Established
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001)	A second FIR is not maintainable if it relates to the same incident. Further investigation must be done under Section 173(8) CrPC.
Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat (2010)	Test of sameness: If two FIRs arise from the same transaction, the second FIR is not valid.

Cases Allowing Second FIRs in Specific Situations.

5. Final Judgment by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order quashing the second FIR and restored it, commenting that the investigation into colourised corruption must continue. The Court held that the second FIR was valid, since it brought a bigger scene into the present scenario.

About Author