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
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.
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.
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.
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.
This landmark ruling clarifies the judicial stance on multiple FIRs in corruption cases, reaffirming that:
By balancing the need for thorough investigations with safeguards against frivolous FIRs, this judgment strengthens anti-corruption mechanisms while upholding legal rights.
Internship at Maximus Legal® [July–August 2025 | Onsite & Remote | Legal Research & Drafting]…
Legal Internship at 3SC [June–August 2025 | Gurgaon | Offline | Paid Internship] Apply Now
Nyay Utsav: Ex Aequo Et Bono – Moot Court Competition [29–31 August 2025 | Online…
Call for Submissions: SEAL Blog, RMLNLU Lucknow [Year-Round | Online | Publication Opportunity | Global…
Essay Writing Competition by National Law University, Jodhpur (NLUJ) [20 July 2025 | Online |…
International Debate Competition by Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University [30 August 2025 | Prayagraj…