Second FIR Permissible If New Facts Or Larger Conspiracy Emerge From Subsequent Investigation: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court has held that registration of a second FIR is permissible when it presents rival version's set of facts arising from same circumstances in relation to first FIR but pertaining to a "larger conspiracy" and when probe brings out unknown facts at a later stage. The petitioner was posted as Deputy Chief Medical and Health Office. Based on an audit of the department that...
Rajasthan High Court has held that registration of a second FIR is permissible when it presents rival version's set of facts arising from same circumstances in relation to first FIR but pertaining to a "larger conspiracy" and when probe brings out unknown facts at a later stage.
The petitioner was posted as Deputy Chief Medical and Health Office. Based on an audit of the department that revealed a deficit of Rs. 40 Lakhs, an FIR was registered by the petitioner against an indivisual who was eventually sentenced to 5 years of prison.
Subsequently, a further audit was conducted by the department, and embezzlement of additional amount was found. In this, petitioner's involvement surfaced,leading to filing of an FIR against the petitioner. Against this petitioner moved the high court.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to Supreme Court case of State of Rajasthan v Surendra Singh Rathore and said:
“…when second FIR is in the form of a counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR was registered and when the second FIR is arising from the same set of circumstances, relating to a larger conspiracy and when investigation and/or person related to incident brings to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances, at a later stage, then registration of the subsequent FIR is permissible.”
In this background, the Court held that no error was committed in filing of the second FIR against the petitioner since his role was found specifically when a further audit was conducted at a later stage.
was hearing the quashing petition against this FIR against the petitioner who argued that such FIR amounted to a second FIR in relation to the same incident for which the petitioner had already lodged the FIR against the third person.
It was argued that such lodging of second FIR was impermissible under law, and procedure under Section 173(8) CrPC should have been used that empowered police to further investigate any matter after seeking court's permission.
The court also highlighted that the challenged FIR was not second against the petitioner. It was first FIR against the petitioner, since the earlier FIR was against some third person filed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Dr Charan Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 166