19 February 2025 Corruption >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India inSurinder Dogra v/s State Through Director CBI., has overturned a Rajasthan High Court ruling that quashed a second First Information Report (FIR) in a corruption case, clarifying the circumstances under which multiple FIRs can be legally permissible. The decision emphasizes the importance of thorough investigation, particularly in cases involving widespread corruption.

The case involved a government official, the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director of the Bio-fuel Authority, Government of Rajasthan, who was accused of demanding bribes for issuing licenses to biofuel pump operators. Initially, an FIR was registered based on a complaint alleging a specific incident of bribery. Subsequently, a second FIR was filed, detailing a broader conspiracy and multiple instances of corruption involving the same official and other individuals.

The High Court quashed the second FIR, citing the principle that only one FIR can be registered for the same offense. However, the Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, clarified the exceptions to this rule and reinstated the second FIR.

Key Principles Clarified by the Supreme Court:

• Distinct Scopes: The court emphasized that while a second FIR for the same offense is generally not permissible, it is allowed when the scopes of the two FIRs are distinct. In this case, the first FIR focused on a specific bribery incident, whereas the second FIR addressed a larger conspiracy and multiple instances of corruption.
• Counter-Complaints and Rival Versions: The court reiterated that a second FIR is permissible when it is a counter-complaint or presents a rival version of the facts.
• Larger Conspiracies and New Discoveries: The court highlighted that a second FIR can be registered when investigations reveal a larger conspiracy or bring to light previously unknown facts or circumstances.
• Separate Incidents and Offenses: The court clarified that multiple FIRs are permissible when the incidents are separate, even if the offenses are similar.

Rationale and Implications:

The Supreme Court reasoned that quashing the second FIR would impede the investigation of widespread corruption, which is against the interest of society. The court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation to uncover the full extent of the alleged corruption.

The judgment clarifies the legal position on the permissibility of multiple FIRs, providing guidance to law enforcement agencies and lower courts. It underscores the importance of considering the scope and nature of the allegations when determining the validity of multiple FIRs.

The Supreme Court directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to expedite the investigation, signaling its commitment to combating corruption and ensuring accountability. This decision reinforces the principle that technicalities should not hinder the pursuit of justice, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like corruption.