Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed three connected criminal miscellaneous petitions before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No.46/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Ganganagar for offences under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 111(6), 317(2), 317(5), 318(4) and 61(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The case arose against the backdrop of an earlier FIR No.38/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Abadi for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC on the complaint of a private individual alleging cheating. During investigation of the earlier FIR, the police found that the alleged occurrence had taken place outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station and submitted a final report. Subsequently, a search was conducted at the petitioners' premises, leading to recovery of cash, ATM cards, laptops, computers, mobile phones, rubber stamps, cheque books and property documents. Further investigation revealed various bank accounts and mobile numbers linked to the petitioners allegedly associated with a large number of cyber-fraud complaints, forex trading through a company named Cappmorefx, transactions in virtual currency or USDT, and acquisition of properties from alleged proceeds of crime. The petitioners contended that FIR No.46/2025 was a second FIR in respect of the same transaction and hence impermissible, relying on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala. They also argued that the alleged occurrence related to 2023, before the BNS came into force, and that mere recovery of articles did not satisfy the ingredients of organised crime under Section 111 BNS. The State opposed the petitions, submitting that the earlier FIR related to an individual complaint of cheating, whereas the present FIR disclosed a much wider and distinct criminal activity involving organised cyber fraud and a larger conspiracy. The court considered the scope of both FIRs and applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore and earlier decisions. It held that a second FIR is permissible if the subsequent information discloses a distinct incident or larger conspiracy, and the mere fact that the material surfaced during investigation of the earlier FIR does not render the later FIR impermissible. The court found that the present FIR prima facie disclosed materially wider allegations beyond the individual transaction, including operation of several bank accounts, Forex/USDT transactions, inducement of multiple investors, other modes of cheating, and acquisition of properties from proceeds. On the question of BNS applicability, the court rejected the contention at the present stage, holding that the present FIR was not confined to the 2023 transaction but involved wider ongoing criminal activity. The available excerpt ends without stating the final operative order on quashing, but the court's reasoning on the two preliminary objections favoured the State.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Second FIR - Permissibility of second FIR when investigation of earlier FIR reveals larger conspiracy - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - Petitioners claimed FIR No.46/2025 was impermissible as a second FIR arising from material discovered during investigation of earlier FIR No.38/2025. Court examined scope of both FIRs and held that the present FIR disclosed distinct and materially wider allegations of organised cyber fraud, including multiple bank accounts, Forex/USDT transactions, and linkage to numerous cyber-fraud complaints. Held that registration of second FIR is legally permissible where later information reveals a larger conspiracy or distinct criminal activity, and mere origin of the information during earlier investigation does not render it barred. (Paras 13-18) B) Criminal Law - Applicability of Substantive Law - Invocation of BNS for transactions predating its commencement - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 111, 317, 318, 61 - Petitioners argued that because the earlier FIR related to 2023 occurrences, BNS could not be invoked. Court rejected this contention at the present stage, noting that the present FIR was not confined to the earlier individual transaction but involved a wider ongoing cyber fraud conspiracy with current and continuing activities. Held that contention cannot be accepted at this stage and BNS invocation is not ex facie illegal. (Paras 19-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether FIR No.46/2025 is liable to be quashed as a second FIR for the same transaction; whether BNS provisions can be invoked when earlier FIR allegations relate to year 2023 before BNS commencement
Final Decision
The court rejected the contention that FIR No.46/2025 was liable to be quashed merely because the material leading to its registration surfaced during investigation of earlier FIR No.38/2025, holding that the present FIR prima facie disclosed a distinct and materially wider criminal activity amounting to a larger cyber fraud conspiracy. The court also rejected the argument that BNS provisions could not be invoked at this stage, noting the present FIR was not confined to the earlier 2023 transaction. The available judgment excerpt does not include the final operative order on quashing the FIR.
Law Points
- Registration of second FIR is permissible where subsequent information discloses a distinct incident or larger conspiracy
- mere fact that material surfaced during investigation of earlier FIR does not render subsequent FIR impermissible
- BNS can be invoked when present FIR relates to wider ongoing criminal activity beyond earlier 2023 transaction
- fundamental principles from T.T. Antony and Surendra Singh Rathore applied
