The FIR And Beyond: Analyzing The Supreme Court’s Decision On Multiple FIRs

Posted On - 10 March, 2025 • By - Sagar Agrawal

Introduction

The First Information Report, or FIR, is the cornerstone of criminal investigation in India. It is the initial recording of a cognizable offence which marks the beginning of a criminal case. Understanding its nuances is crucial for both citizens and legal practitioners. Recently, the Supreme Court clarified the circumstances under which a second FIR can be registered, especially when a prior one already exists. This decision, in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, offers valuable insight into the application of FIR laws, particularly regarding corruption cases and when new information comes to light.[1]

All About a First Information Report (FIR)

The First Information Report (FIR) is the initial record of a cognizable offense, now filed under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), replacing Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). It is the starting point for a criminal investigation. While the term FIR is not explicitly used in the Code, it is a commonly used term in legal practice.

Lodging of an FIR

  • Generally, FIRs are filed at the police station which has the territorial jurisdiction over the place where the offence occurred.
  • Anyone, not just victims or eyewitnesses, can file an FIR.
  • Even anonymous information can trigger an FIR.
  • Personal knowledge of the incident is not necessary; the police must act upon any credible information.

Objectives of an FIR

  • To set the criminal justice system in motion.
  • To gather initial information about the alleged crime.
  • To prevent later fabrication or embellishment of facts.
  • To protect the accused from later changes in the accusations.

Essentials of an FIR

  • The information must relate to a cognizable offense (where police can arrest without a warrant).
  • It can be given orally or in writing. Oral information must be written down by the police.
  • The informant must sign the written record, and a free copy must be provided to them.
  • The written record must be read back to the informant to confirm its accuracy.
  • The information must be recorded in the General Diary or the Station Diary, as per the rules of the respective State Government.

Contents of an FIR

  • The FIR should contain the substance of the information, not every minute detail.
  • It is a summary of the reported offense. It should contain only the first account of the information received and not conclusions or detailed investigations.
  • It should contain the following details:
    • Date, time, and place of the incident.
    • Identity of the victim and accused (if known).
    • A brief description of the offence committed.
    • Names of witnesses (if any).

Evidentiary Value

  • FIRs are not substantive evidence on their own.
  • They can be used to:
    • Corroborate or contradict the informant’s testimony.
    • Show that the accusation wasn’t a later invention.
    • Serve as substantive evidence if it’s part of the informant’s conduct.
    • Act as substantive evidence if the informant dies, and the FIR relates to their death.

Exceptions to FIR Registration

  • Preliminary inquiries may be conducted before registering an FIR in certain situations like:
    • Matrimonial/family disputes.
    • Commercial offenses.
    • Medical negligence cases.
    • Corruption cases.
    • Cases with significant delays in reporting.
  • These preliminary inquiries must be concluded in 7 days.

Refusal to Register an FIR

If a police officer refuses to register an FIR, the complainant can:

  • Send a complaint to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS, replacing Section 154(3) CrPC.
  • Approach the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, replacing Section 156(3) CrPC.

Zero FIR

  • A Zero FIR is registered at any police station, regardless of jurisdiction.
  • It is then transferred to the appropriate police station for investigation.
  • It receives no FIR number at the initial police station.
  • This ensures that cases, especially those involving serious crimes like sexual offences, murder, or fraud are recorded without delay.

Key Case Laws

  • Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP & Ors.: Mandatory FIR registration for cognizable offenses and no preliminary inquiry is needed unless specific exceptions are applicable.[2]
  • Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India & Ors.: Guidelines on providing FIR copies to accused and uploading FIRs online to ensure transparency.[3]

The Recent SC Decision: When can a Second FIR be Registered?

Background of the Case

  • This case concerns the legality of a second FIR being registered for alleged corruption offenses when a prior FIR already existed.[4]
  • The respondent, a Chief Executive Officer-cum-Project Director in the Bio-fuel Authority of Rajasthan, was accused of demanding and accepting bribes.
  • An FIR was initially filed based on a complaint alleging the respondent demanded a bribe for bio-diesel sales and license renewal, specifically an incident dated 4th April 2022.
  • Subsequently, another FIR was registered, detailing a broader conspiracy involving the respondent and others, with alleged bribe-taking related to biofuel pump licenses, covering a period from 30th September 2021 to 12th April 2022.
  • The respondent challenged the second FIR, arguing it covered similar allegations to the first, and that a second FIR for the same transaction was improper.
  • The respondent also raised the issue of lack of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and argued that new information should be added to the initial FIR, not a new FIR.
  • The Rajasthan High Court agreed with the respondent, quashing the second FIR, primarily on the grounds that it related to similar offences that could have been included in the first FIR, and that prior sanction was required.
  • The State of Rajasthan, being aggrieved by the quashing of the second FIR, then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

The Court’s Decision

The central issue was the legality of registering a subsequent FIR and whether the High Court correctly quashed it using its inherent powers.

Supreme Court’s Reliance on Precedent

  • The Supreme Court acknowledged the general principle from T.T. Antony[5] that a second FIR for the same offense is typically not maintainable.
  • However, it emphasized that this principle has been modified by subsequent judicial pronouncements, allowing for flexibility.
  • It cited several cases including Anju Chaudhary[6], Kari Choudhary[7], Upkar Singh[8], Babu Bhai[9], and Nirmal Singh Kahlon[10] to illustrate the circumstances under which a second FIR is permissible.

Principles for Permissibility of Second FIR

  • When it is a counter-complaint or presents a rival version.
  • When the scope of the two FIRs is different, even if arising from the same circumstances.
  • When further investigation reveals a larger conspiracy.
  • When new facts or circumstances come to light.
  • When the incidents or offenses are separate.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

  • The court found that the scope of the two FIRs was distinct.
  • The first FIR focused on a specific incident, while the second FIR pertained to a larger issue of widespread corruption.
  • Quashing the second FIR would have prematurely ended the investigation into broader corruption.
  • The court indicated that the second FIR revealed a larger conspiracy, and new discoveries, thus making the second FIR valid.

Final Decision

  • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment.
  • The second FIR was restored and the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, was directed to complete the investigation expeditiously.
  • The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, was ordered to ensure compliance.

Conclusion

The FIR stands as the initial, critical record, a trigger for criminal investigations. It is meant to ensure that reported offenses are taken seriously and acted upon without delay. While police are generally required to register FIRs for serious crimes, courts must still be vigilant. The Supreme Court’s recent decision provides much-needed clarity on when multiple FIRs can be validly registered, especially when new information comes to light. By reaffirming the rules around FIR registration, the court strengthens both the rights of individuals and the capacity of law enforcement to pursue wider criminal networks such as in corruption cases.

[1] https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/7000/7000_2024_5_1501_59413_Judgement_19-Feb-2025.pdf.

[2] https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/documents/aor_notice_circular/31.pdf.

[3] Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 68 of 2016.

[4] https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/7000/7000_2024_5_1501_59413_Judgement_19-Feb-2025.pdf.

[5] T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181.

[6] Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384.

[7] Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi, (2002) 1 SCC 714.

[8] Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292.

[9] Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254.

[10] Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com