Case: State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore
Case Number: SLP(Crl.) No.16358 of 2024
Date: February 19, 2025
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sanjay Karol

Background of the Case

Surendra Singh Rathore, serving as the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director of the Bio-fuel Authority under the Government of Rajasthan, was accused of soliciting bribes from bio-fuel firms in exchange for approvals and license renewals for biodiesel pumps.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) initially registered FIR No. 123 of 2022 on April 4, 2022, following complaints from three individuals alleging that Rathore demanded a bribe of ₹2 per liter of bio-diesel, a monthly payment of ₹15 lakh, and an additional ₹5 lakh for license extensions. Subsequently, FIR No. 131 of 2022 was filed on April 14, 2022, uncovering a broader corruption network involving intermediaries acting under Rathore’s directives to facilitate the bribery scheme.

Rathore contested the second FIR before the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that it was redundant since the allegations were based on the same transactional chain as the first FIR. The High Court ruled in his favor and quashed the second FIR, stating that multiple FIRs for the same offense were legally unsustainable.

---

Key Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the registration of a second FIR in the same corruption case was legally tenable.
2. Whether the second FIR introduced new elements of criminality or was merely repetitive of the first FIR.
3. Whether multiple FIRs can be justified in corruption cases involving larger conspiracies.

---

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that multiple FIRs for the same offense are generally impermissible. However, an exception exists when a second FIR exposes new offenses, additional conspirators, or a broader scheme of criminal activity beyond what was initially recorded.

Referring to precedents set in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that independent FIRs are justified if they unearth new facts or a more complex criminal conspiracy.

---

Legal Provisions Considered

• Section 120B, IPC, 1860: Punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Offense relating to bribery by public servants.
• Article 19, Constitution of India: Protection of fundamental freedoms.
• Article 21, Constitution of India: Right to life and personal liberty.
• Section 173, CrPC: Police report on the completion of investigation.

---

Arguments Presented

State’s Arguments
The State of Rajasthan contended that the second FIR was warranted as it uncovered a wider, systemic corruption network involving multiple intermediaries facilitating bribery on Rathore’s behalf. Prosecutors emphasized that barring a second FIR would hinder a comprehensive investigation into the full extent of the corruption racket.

Defense’s Arguments
Rathore’s legal counsel argued that the second FIR was legally redundant and constituted an abuse of process. The defense asserted that both FIRs stemmed from the same chain of transactions and that further inquiries could have been conducted under the first FIR, negating the need for an additional complaint.

---

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court’s decision and upheld the validity of the second FIR. It ruled that the second FIR was justified as it exposed a larger network of corruption involving multiple individuals beyond Rathore himself. The Court held that procedural technicalities should not obstruct investigations, particularly in corruption cases where fresh evidence surfaces.

The Court directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to proceed with its investigation without impediments and instructed the Director General of Police to ensure compliance with legal protocols.

---

Implications of the Judgment

This landmark ruling clarifies the judicial stance on multiple FIRs in corruption cases, reaffirming that:

• A second FIR is impermissible if it merely reiterates the first complaint.
• A second FIR is admissible when it brings to light a larger criminal conspiracy or additional offenses.
• Authorities have a mandate to investigate corruption cases comprehensively, ensuring that systematic malpractices are exposed.

By balancing the need for thorough investigations with safeguards against frivolous FIRs, this judgment strengthens anti-corruption mechanisms while upholding legal rights.

---

Also Read: More Legal Opportunities

• Associate and Internship Opportunities at Bhargava Legal [Immediate Joining, Delhi, In-Office]: Apply Now
• Internship Opportunities at S&N Legal [March-April 2025, New Delhi, Physical]: Apply Now
• Senior Associate Hiring by Athena Legal [New Delhi, Full-Time]: Apply Now
• Crime Scene Investigation Competition by Chandigarh Law College, Jhanjeri [8th March 2025, Mohali, In-Person, Prizes Up to ₹21,000]: Register by 5th March 2025 – Apply Now
• Call for Papers: Contemporary Perspectives on Legal Reforms by Amity University Patna [March 2025, Virtual]: Submit by 1st March 2025 – Apply Now
• Legal Associate (Litigation) Position at Acelegal [Full-Time, Navi Mumbai]: Apply Now
• Moot Court Competition by Surana & Surana & School of Law, Sathyabama [March 20-22, 2025, Chennai, In-Person, Prizes Up to ₹25,000]: Register by 6th March 2025 – Apply Now
• Virtual Legal Internship Opportunity by Quant LegalTech [March 2025]: Apply Now
• Paid Legal Internship Opportunity by Rest The Case [March 2025, Pune, In-Office]: Apply Now