THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SURENDRA SINGH RATHORE
Discusses principles for registering second FIRs, double jeopardy, fair investigation, and abuse of power.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 248
Decision Date: 19-02-2025
List of Laws
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Constitution of India, 1949; General Principles of Law
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The judgment discusses Sections 7, 7A, 8, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, in the context of offences punishable under these sections. It also mentions that FIR No. 123 of 2022 was registered under Sections 7 and 7A of the P.C. Act, related to a demand for a bribe. The judgment also notes the argument that no sanction was taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act for proceeding against the respondent.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment refers to Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in relation to the offences punishable.
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: The judgment discusses Section 482 Cr.P.C., stating that the respondent preferred a petition under this section seeking quashing of the second FIR. The High Court quashed the second FIR in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The judgment also refers to Sections 154, 156, 173, and 190 of the Code, discussing the concept of a second FIR. It mentions Section 173(2) CrPC in the context of filing a police report. The judgment also refers to Section 167(2) of the Code.
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment refers to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, stating that a second FIR in a case which is not a cross-case violates Article 21. It also mentions Articles 19, 21, 226, and 227 of the Constitution.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment extensively discusses the principles regarding the permissibility of registering a second FIR. It outlines five principles: (9.1) when the second FIR is a counter-complaint or presents a rival version; (9.2) when the ambit of the two FIRs is different; (9.3) when investigation reveals the earlier FIR to be part of a larger conspiracy; (9.4) when investigation brings to light hitherto unknown facts; and (9.5) where the incident is separate. The judgment also discusses the "test of sameness" in relation to multiple FIRs.
🔒 For Members Only