When Second FIR Can Be Registered : Supreme Court Outlines Key Circumstances

The Supreme Court today (February 19) ruled that while a second FIR for the same offence is impermissible, a second FIR for a different offence is permissible.

The Court stated that the nature of the allegations in both FIRs must be examined to determine the permissibility of registering a subsequent FIR.

The Court narrated the following circumstances when the registration of a second FIR is permissible:

"1. When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.

2. When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances.

3. When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.

4. When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.

5. Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different."

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the State of Rajasthan's appeal against the High Court's decision to quash a second FIR against the respondent, a Bio-fuel Authority official.

The first FIR was filed after three individuals reported to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) that the respondent demanded a bribe for bio-diesel sales and license renewal. The second FIR, based on ACB surveillance, alleged a broader bribery scheme involving the respondent and middlemen.

The respondent moved to quash the second FIR under Section 482 CrPC, arguing it was repetitive and an abuse of process. The High Court agreed and quashed the second FIR, prompting the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.

At the outset, the judgment authored by Justice Karol noted that the High Court erred in not examining the nature of the allegations labeled against the respondent. Since the second FIR was registered on a distinct and separate offence, not similar to the primary FIR, thus, the Court justified the registration of subsequent FIR.

“the High Court found that the two FIRs were indeed in regard to the same offence and, therefore, not maintainable, however, in our view the scope of the two FIRs, as already referred to in para 3 supra, are distinct. The FIR prior in point of time refers to a particular incident and the action taken therein is limited. The second FIR pertains to the larger issue of widespread corruption in the concerned department and, therefore, is much larger in its scope than the previous FIR.”, the court observed.

The Court cited several cases which support the registration of second FIR based on a distinct and separate offence. One such case was of Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P (2013) 6 SCC 384 where the Court extensively dealt with the concept of a second FIR at length.

“there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR could be registered.”, the court said in Anju Chaudhary.

Noting that the quashing of the FIR would nip the investigation into such corruption, in the bud and would be against the interest of society, the Court allowed the appeal, and set aside the High Court's decision that quashed the second FIR against the Respondent.

Case Title: STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS SURENDRA SINGH RATHORE

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Saubhagya Sundriyal, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ranga Sharan, Adv.