The Supreme Court outlines the rules about allowing a second FIR to be registered.

The Supreme Court has outlined the rules about allowing a second FIR (First Information Report) to be registered. This came up during a Criminal Appeal from the State against a decision by the Rajasthan High Court, which accepted the accused’s request to cancel an FIR. The two-Judge Bench, made up of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, pointed out the following key principles regarding the registration of a second FIR:

1. A second FIR can be filed if it is a counter-complaint or presents a different perspective on facts already covered by an earlier FIR.
2. A second FIR is allowed if it deals with different issues, even if they come from the same situation.
3. If investigations show that the earlier FIR is part of a bigger conspiracy, a second FIR can be registered.
4. If new facts or circumstances come to light during the investigation, a second FIR may be justified.
5. A second FIR is permissible if the incidents are distinct, regardless of whether the offenses are similar or different.

The main question for the Bench was whether it is legally acceptable to register a second FIR and if the High Court was right to use its powers to cancel it. AAG Shiv Mangal Sharma represented the Appellant/State, while Senior Advocate Maninder Singh represented the Respondent/Accused.

Three individuals filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against a Respondent-accused who worked as the Chief Executive Officer and Project Director of the Bio-fuel Authority in the Government of Rajasthan. They claimed he demanded a bribe of Rs. 2 per litre for bio-diesel sales, totaling Rs. 15 lakhs monthly, plus an additional Rs. 5 lakhs for renewing the complainant’s license. An FIR was filed against him under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. Later, a second FIR was registered after an ACB Constable informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) that the accused was also taking bribes to issue licenses for bio-fuel pumps.

This second FIR, which was about 30 pages long, detailed the alleged conspiracy involving the accused and included records of calls made and received by various individuals related to the conspiracy. The accused challenged the second FIR by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The High Court ruled that the second FIR was an abuse of legal process and dismissed it. Consequently, the State appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court found both FIRs related to the same offense and thus not valid. However, the Court stated that the two FIRs had different scopes. The earlier FIR addressed a specific incident, and the actions taken were limited to that. The Court also pointed out that the second FIR deals with a bigger problem of widespread corruption in the relevant department, making it broader than the first FIR. “Canceling the FIR would stop the investigation into this corruption before it starts, which would not be good for society,” it stated. As a result, the Apex Court approved the Appeal, overturned the previous Judgment, and reinstated the second FIR.

Cause Title: State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 248) Appearance:
Appellant: AAG Shiv Mangal Sharma, AOR Nidhi Jaswal, Advocates Saubhagya Sundriyal, and Rustam Singh Chauhan.
Respondent: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, AOR Anand Varma, Advocates Ayush Gupta, and Ranga Sharan.