Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (PC Act) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Second FIR registered regarding corruption in bio-fuel licensing – High Court quashed FIR, holding it an abuse of process – Supreme Court held second FIR maintainable due to larger conspiracy – Investigation ordered to continue – Judgment dated 19th February 2025.

Discussion on maintainability of second FIR. (Paras 6–12) Test of sameness and larger conspiracy analysis. (Paras 9–10) Supreme Court order restoring FIR and directing investigation. (Para 12)

Appeal allowed – FIR restored – Investigation to be completed expeditiously.

Held – Supreme Court reversed High Court order, restored FIR No.131 of 2022 – Investigation directed to proceed.

Acts & Sections Discussed:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 – Sections 7, 7A, 8, 12 – Bribery allegations against public servant.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy.

Subjects:

Quashing of FIR – Second FIR – Test of sameness – Larger conspiracy – Supplementary investigation – Abuse of process – Prior permission – Corruption allegations – Bio-fuel licensing – Surveillance.

Facts:

(a) Nature of Litigation – Appeal against High Court order quashing second FIR.
(b) Appellant & Remedy Sought – State of Rajasthan sought restoration of FIR to investigate corruption allegations.
(c) Reason for Filing Case – High Court held second FIR was not maintainable; State challenged ruling.
(d) Prior Decisions – High Court quashed FIR No.131 of 2022, citing violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issues:

(i) Whether the second FIR was maintainable under law?
(ii) Whether High Court erred in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC?
(iii) Whether fresh investigation into broader corruption conspiracy was justified?

Submissions/Arguments:

State of Rajasthan:
(a) Second FIR pertained to larger corruption investigation, not the same transaction.
(b) High Court misapplied legal precedents regarding multiple FIRs.
(c) Quashing FIR would prevent full investigation into systemic corruption.

Respondent (Surendra Singh Rathore):
(a) Allegations in second FIR arose from same facts as first FIR.
(b) Investigation should have proceeded as supplementary, not as new FIR.
(c) High Court rightly applied "test of sameness" from Supreme Court precedents.

Ratio – Second FIR was distinct as it uncovered a wider conspiracy – Quashing FIR would hinder investigation into systemic corruption.