Supreme Court Restores FIR Against Rajasthan Official in Corruption Case: “Second FIR Uncovered Systemic Bribery, Quashing It Would Hinder Investigation”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment, which had quashed the second FIR filed against a government official accused of bribery. The Court ruled that the second FIR was distinct from the first and focused on systemic corruption rather than an isolated incident. It emphasized that quashing the second FIR would hinder a crucial investigation, which is against the larger public interest.

The Court restored FIR No. 131 of 2022 and directed the Rajasthan Director General of Police to ensure the investigation is completed promptly.

Facts

1. The case involves allegations against the respondent, who was serving as Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director, Biofuel Authority, Government of Rajasthan.
2. The allegations were based on a complaint lodged with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) by three individuals:
   • Vipin Parihar (Chief Marketing Officer, Fern Bio-Fuel Pvt. Ltd.)
   • Deven Shah (his business partner)
   • Satya Narayan Saini (S.D., Kusum Petro Chemicals)
3. They alleged that the respondent demanded bribes to issue and renew licenses for operating biofuel pumps:
   • ₹2 per litre of biodiesel sold (amounting to ₹15 lakh per month)
   • ₹5 lakh for license renewal
4. Based on this, FIR No. 123 of 2022 was registered under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
5. Later, on April 14, 2022, another FIR (FIR No. 131 of 2022) was filed after an informant within the ACB provided fresh details about widespread corruption in the department.
6. The second FIR detailed multiple incidents of bribery, surveillance reports, and intercepted communications involving middlemen facilitating illegal transactions.
7. The respondent challenged the second FIR before the Rajasthan High Court, which ruled in his favor and quashed FIR No. 131 of 2022.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Legality of the Second FIR: Whether the second FIR was valid under criminal law or whether it violated the “test of sameness” established in previous rulings.
2. Power of the High Court Under Section 482 CrPC: Whether the High Court correctly used its inherent powers to quash the second FIR.
3. Distinction Between Two FIRs: Whether the allegations in the second FIR were separate and distinct from those in the first FIR.
4. Requirement of Prior Sanction: Whether the prosecution required prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act before proceeding against the respondent.

Petitioner’s (State of Rajasthan) Arguments

1. The Two FIRs Were Distinct:
   • The first FIR dealt with a specific bribery demand for issuing a license.
   • The second FIR exposed a larger conspiracy involving systematic corruption.
   • The scope of the second FIR went beyond a single incident and implicated multiple actors.
2. A Second FIR Was Necessary:
   • The second FIR uncovered a network of corrupt practices spanning multiple transactions.
   • Surveillance revealed more middlemen, bribes, and illegal approvals, justifying a fresh FIR.
   • A single FIR could not cover such an extensive web of criminal activity.
3. Legal Precedents Allowed a Second FIR:
   • The Supreme Court had previously permitted multiple FIRs in cases where:
     • A larger conspiracy was uncovered (Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab).
     • Separate incidents were discovered (Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P.).
   • The High Court wrongly relied on T.T. Antony (2001), which applied only when the second FIR duplicated the first FIR.
4. No Sanction Was Required at This Stage:
   • Prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was not a prerequisite for registering an FIR.
   • Sanction would be relevant at the prosecution stage, not at the investigation stage.

Respondent’s (Accused Official) Arguments

1. The Second FIR Was Illegal:
   • The second FIR did not introduce any new incidents.
   • It was merely an expansion of the first FIR.
   • The Supreme Court had previously ruled in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) that multiple FIRs for the same transaction are not allowed.
2. The Investigation Should Have Been Conducted Under the First FIR:
   • If additional information surfaced, it should have been investigated under the first FIR as a supplementary charge sheet.
   • Registering a separate FIR was an abuse of process.
3. Lack of Sanction Rendered the FIR Invalid:
   • The prosecution did not obtain prior sanction before investigating a public servant, making the FIR legally unsustainable.

Analysis of the Law

1. The Test of Sameness

• In T.T. Antony (2001), the Court ruled that two FIRs for the same incident are not permissible unless they present counterclaims or rival versions.
• However, in Anju Chaudhary (2013), the Court clarified that if the second FIR involves new facts, a broader conspiracy, or additional accused persons, it is valid.

2. Judicial Precedents Allowing Multiple FIRs

• In a conspiracy case, multiple FIRs are valid when:
  • A new larger conspiracy is uncovered (Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab).
  • The second FIR involves different accused or events (Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi).
  • A counter-case is filed (Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash).
• Here, the second FIR was based on newly discovered evidence, making it legally valid.

Precedent Analysis

The Court reviewed past judgments:

1. T.T. Antony (2001) – A second FIR for the same incident is not permissible.
2. Anju Chaudhary (2013) – A second FIR is allowed if it involves distinct allegations or a broader conspiracy.
3. Nirmal Singh Kahlon (2009) – A second FIR is valid if new evidence emerges.
4. Upkar Singh (2004) – A counter-complaint can justify a second FIR.

The Supreme Court concluded that the second FIR met these legal standards and should not have been quashed.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The Two FIRs Were Legally Distinct:
   • The first FIR was limited to a single bribe.
   • The second FIR uncovered widespread corruption in the licensing process.
   • The broader conspiracy justified a separate FIR.
2. Quashing the FIR Would Hinder the Investigation:
   • The second FIR revealed a systemic bribery racket.
   • Stopping the investigation would prevent exposure of deeper corruption.
3. No Prior Sanction Was Required for Investigation:
   • Sanction is required before prosecution, not before investigation.
   • The High Court wrongly quashed the FIR on procedural grounds.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment.
• FIR No. 131 of 2022 was restored.
• The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, was directed to complete the investigation.
• The appeal was allowed.

Implications

1. Strengthens Anti-Corruption Investigations:
   • Government officials engaging in systemic corruption can now face more thorough investigations.
2. Limits the “Test of Sameness” Doctrine:
   • Second FIRs are allowed if they expose a broader crime or new facts.
3. Ensures Accountability in Government Licensing:
   • The ruling prevents technical arguments from shielding large-scale corruption.

Also Read – Supreme Court: Interest on Compensation Under Employee’s Compensation Act is Mandatory at 12% Per Annum; Insurer Liable Without Right to Recover from Employer