Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order quashing a second FIR against a State bio-fuel authority official under the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that a second FIR is permissible where its scope differs from the first; here the first FIR concerned a single bribe demand while the second concerned a wider conspiracy of corruption in the department. The second FIR was restored and the investigation directed to be completed early.
Issues
- Whether registration of a second FIR against the respondent, while an earlier FIR on a bribe demand was pending, was legally permissible.
- Whether the High Court rightly exercised its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the second FIR as an abuse of process.
Provisions considered
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Relying on T.T. Antony and Anju Chaudhary, the Court accepted that ordinarily there cannot be two FIRs for the same occurrence, but held that the scheme of Section 154 permits a second FIR in identified situations, including where its ambit differs or it reveals a larger conspiracy. (¶¶ 7, 8.1, 9)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court had quashed the second FIR under its inherent power as an abuse of process. The Supreme Court held the quashing unjustified because the two FIRs were distinct in scope and quashing would stifle an investigation into corruption. (¶¶ 5, 6, 10, 11)
- Section 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Noted through T.T. Antony as the power of further investigation that ordinarily governs fresh material in the same case, as distinct from fresh investigation on successive FIRs for the same incident. (¶¶ 4, 7)
- Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018)The offences for which both FIRs were registered against the respondent; the Court did not construe these provisions but restored the FIR registered under them for investigation. (¶¶ 2, 3.1, 12)
- Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860The criminal conspiracy charge in the second FIR, which the Court treated as concerning a larger conspiracy of corruption beyond the single incident in the first FIR. (¶¶ 2, 3.3, 10)
Held
- As a rule there cannot be two FIRs for the same offence or occurrence, and successive FIRs for the same or connected offence in the course of the same transaction may be quashed; but judicial decisions have given this rule flexibility. (¶¶ 7, 8, 8.1)
- Drawing on Anju Chaudhary, Kari Choudhary, Upkar Singh, Babubhai and Nirmal Singh Kahlon, a second FIR is permissible: (i) where it is a counter-complaint or rival version of facts covered by an earlier FIR; (ii) where the ambit of the two FIRs differs though they arise from the same circumstances; (iii) where investigation or other avenues show the earlier facts to be part of a larger conspiracy; (iv) where hitherto unknown facts come to light; and (v) where the incident is separate, whether the offences are similar or different. (¶¶ 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9)
- The High Court erred in treating the two FIRs as relating to the same offence. The first FIR concerned a particular bribe demand with limited action, whereas the second concerned widespread corruption in the department and was much larger in scope, so the second FIR was maintainable. (¶ 10)
- Quashing the second FIR would nip in the bud the investigation into such corruption, which would be against the interest of society. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; FIR No. 131 of 2022 restored to the file of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur; investigation to be completed at the earliest, with the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to ensure compliance.