Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court quashing the second FIR registered against the respondent, Surendra Singh Rathore, under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The background of the case involves allegations of bribery against the respondent, who was employed as Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director of the Bio-fuel Authority, Government of Rajasthan. The first FIR (No. 123 of 2022) was lodged on 4th April 2022 based on a complaint by Vipin Parihar and others alleging demand of bribe @ Rs.2 per litre for sale of bio-diesel. The second FIR (No. 131 of 2022) was registered on 14th April 2022 based on information from a constable about a separate incident between 30th September 2021 and 12th April 2022, where the respondent allegedly accepted bribes through middlemen for granting licenses. The respondent sought quashing of the second FIR under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that it was a second FIR for the same transaction and that no prior sanction was obtained under the PC Act. The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that both incidents were identical and committed within a short span, and that prior permission was mandatory. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court failed to apply the correct legal test. The Court held that a second FIR is permissible if it discloses distinct and separate incidents not part of the same transaction. The test of sameness must be applied to determine whether the allegations in the second FIR are essentially the same as those in the first. In this case, the second FIR detailed a separate conspiracy involving different middlemen and a different time period, which could not be said to be part of the same transaction. The Court also noted that the requirement of prior sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act applies only to offences under that Act, but the second FIR also included Section 120-B IPC, which does not require such sanction. Therefore, the High Court's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, directing the investigation to proceed in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Second FIR - Permissibility - Distinct and Separate Incidents - Sections 154, 173, 482 CrPC, 1973 - The court examined whether a second FIR can be registered when the allegations relate to a separate incident not forming part of the same transaction as the first FIR. Held that a second FIR is permissible if it discloses distinct and separate offences, and the test of sameness must be applied to determine if the incidents are part of the same transaction. The High Court erred in quashing the second FIR without properly applying this test (Paras 6-10). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Prior Sanction - Requirement - Sections 7, 7A, 8, 12, 17A, 19 Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 - The court considered whether prior sanction is mandatory before investigation of a public servant under the PC Act. Held that the requirement of prior sanction under Section 17A applies only to offences under the PC Act, but the second FIR also included Section 120-B IPC, which does not require such sanction. The High Court's finding that prior permission was a must was not fully justified (Paras 5, 11). C) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Quashing of FIR - Abuse of Process - Section 482 CrPC, 1973 - The court examined the scope of inherent powers to quash an FIR. Held that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process of law. The High Court's quashing of the second FIR was premature as the investigation was at an early stage and the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence (Paras 5-6, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether registration of a subsequent FIR is legally permissible when the allegations pertain to a separate incident not part of the same transaction as the first FIR, and whether the High Court was correct in quashing the second FIR under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the petition filed by the respondent under Section 482 CrPC. The investigation in FIR No. 131 of 2022 shall proceed in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Second FIR permissible for distinct and separate incidents
- test of sameness
- inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
- abuse of process of law
- prior sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act
