'Larger Conspiracy Not Ruled Out': Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash 2017 Rioting FIRs Against MP Chandrashekhar Ravan

A bench of Justice Sameer Jain noted that merely because incidents occurred on the same day, subsequent FIRs cannot be quashed if their "ambit is different" and the offences were committed at different places and times.

The Court also added that in cases where a "larger conspiracy" cannot be ruled out, as was the case in the present matter, the separate and subsequent FIRs are permissible.

Case in brief

Briefly put, Ravan moved four pleas under Section 528 BNSS, challenging the FIRs and charge-sheets in four subsequent FIRs. Alternatively, he also prayed that the subsequent 4 FIRs be treated as supplementary charge-sheets to the first FIR (Case Crime No. 152 of 2017).

Senior Advocate Sushil Shukla, appearing for Chandrashekhar, argued that the first FIR was lodged on May 9, 2017, alleging that Ravan and his associates (a mob of 250-300 people) had created a jam, assaulted administrative officers, police officials with illegal weapons, committed aro and also damaged public property.

This FIR (Case Crime No. 152 of 2017) was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 336, 427, 436, 353, 323 IPC and Section ¾ Public Property Damages Act.

He contended that the four subsequent FIRs lodged on the same day pertained to the same mob, the same set of evidence and the same incidents occurring within the "same transaction".

It was contended that, as per the SC's verdict in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, the second FIR on the same set of facts is impermissible and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

On the other hand, Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal argued that the incidents occurred at different places and the FIRs were lodged by different individuals including private persons.

He contended that if the mob moved from one place to another committing distinct offences, damaging properties, vehicles or causing injuries, separate FIRs could very well be lodged.

HC's observations

Against the backdrop of these arguments, the Court noted that although the date of the incidents (May 9, 2017) was common, the place and time of the incidents in the subsequent FIRs were different.

Justice Jain referred to the recent 2025 Supreme Court judgment in State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rathore 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 227 to note that a second FIR is maintainable "when the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances" or when the investigation reveals the earlier set of facts to be part of a "larger conspiracy".

The High Court observed:

"In case at hand, it reflects, the mob relating to Bheem Army continuously for hours committed arsoning and damaging properties at different places at different time...considering the fact that applicant is sitting [MP]…relating to political party and alleged offences were allegedly committed by his party workers, the arguments advanced by learned AAG that it appears to be a case which involves larger conspiracy cannot be ruled out…"

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab to reiterate that if new discoveries are made on factual foundations, separate proceedings are justified.

Thus, the HC concluded that the scope of all subsequent FIRs is distinct and the incidents are separate, even if they arose from the same transaction.

Further, it also noted that the trial court had already taken cognizance and the cases were at the evidence stage. In the case arising from the first FIR, six prosecution witnesses had already been examined and witnesses had also been deposed in the subsequent cases.

Justice Jain thus opined that at this advanced stage, it was not desirable to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the proceedings or merge the charge-sheets. Consequently, the applications were dismissed as being devoid of merit.