Second FIR Abuse of Process if Joint Trial Possible: Raj HC

Second Bribery FIR Quashed as Abuse of Process Where Section 219 CrPC Permits Joint Trial: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a second Anti Corruption Bureau FIR against a Biofuel Authority CEO, registered six days after a trap case against him, alleging another bribe. Because Section 219 CrPC allowed the two like offences, committed within twelve months, to be tried together, and both FIRs alleged the same conspiracy, the second FIR was an abuse of process (paras 15-16). Without Section 17A approval it could not be investigated either (para 18).

Key holdings

Successive FIRs on one incident or parts of one transaction fail the ‘sameness’ test and may be quashed (paras 8, 10).

If Section 219 CrPC permits a joint trial of like offences within twelve months, one investigation should cover them (paras 15-16).

Added Sections 8 and 12 PC Act, not attracted against him, did not make the second FIR distinct (paras 12-13).

Section 17A prior approval is needed where the public servant was not arrested on the spot accepting a bribe (paras 17-18).

Anju Choudhary and Nirmal Singh Kahlon were distinguished; Saurabh Garg had not considered Section 219 (para 19).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, CEO of the Biofuel Authority under the Rural Development Department, was booked in FIR No. 123/2022 of 08.04.2022 under Sections 7 and 7A of the PC Act and Section 120-B IPC after an Anti Corruption Bureau trap: a biodiesel businessman alleged a monthly bribe demand, and the money was taken through a man waiting outside his office (paras 1-2). On 14.04.2022 the Bureau registered FIR No. 131/2022, adding Sections 8 and 12, based on surveillance of two alleged middlemen's phones from 30.09.2021 (paras 1, 3). In item 10 of the recorded calls, a January 2022 call allegedly concerned a bribe for clearing another person's file (para 4).

Court's Findings

Under the ‘sameness’ test, successive FIRs on the same incident, or on parts of one transaction, are irregular and call for interference under Article 226/227 or Section 482 CrPC (paras 8, 10). Both FIRs alleged a conspiracy to take bribes for undue official favours; the Sections 8 and 12 offences added in the second FIR were not attracted against the petitioner (para 12), and, as in Prem Chand Singh, added sections do not change a common substratum (para 13). The two alleged bribes were identical in nature and close in time, so the earlier one could be investigated in the first FIR, since Section 219 CrPC allows up to three offences of the same kind within twelve months to be tried together (para 15). That made the second FIR an abuse of process; with the same conspiracy alleged in both, Amitbhai applied, and the State showed no prejudice from quashing (para 16). As the second FIR involved no arrest on the spot, Section 17A required prior approval before any investigation (paras 17-18). Anju Choudhary and Nirmal Singh Kahlon concerned distinct incidents or a fresh conspiracy allegation, and a coordinate Bench in Saurabh Garg had not considered Section 219 (para 19).

Legal Principle

Where a second FIR alleges an offence of the same kind against the same accused that could be charged and tried with the offence in the first FIR under Section 219 CrPC, and both FIRs allege the same conspiracy, it should be investigated in the first FIR; a separate FIR is an abuse of process of law (paras 15-16, 19).

Precedents Relied Upon

T.T. Antoney v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5, 8
After an FIR is registered and investigation begins, a second or successive FIR on the same incident and crime, with a fresh investigation, is irregular and calls for interference under Article 226/227 or Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the statutory power of investigation; a just balance must be struck between citizens' rights under Articles 19 and 21 and the police power to investigate.
Babubhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5, 10, 19
Test of sameness: if both FIRs relate to the same incident or to two or more parts of the same transaction, the second FIR is liable to be quashed; if they concern different incidents or crimes, it is permissible.
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Ors. (2013) 6 SCC 348
Followed Discussed at ¶ 5, 11, 16, 19
A second FIR for a further incident carried out under the same conspiracy was quashed where the CBI could not show prejudice to the prosecution; the Court held the present case covered by it.

View all precedents (9)

Prem Chand Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. JT 2020 (2) SC 195
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5, 13
A second FIR with the same substratum as the first is not justified merely because further offences (Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC) are added.
Yashwant Sinha & Ors. v. CBI (2020) 2 SCC 338
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5, 18
Section 17A PC Act bars any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence relatable to a public servant's recommendation or decision in discharge of official functions without previous approval (cited in para 18 as "Yashwant Singh (supra)").
Anju Choudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 6, 14, 19
Relied on by the State: whether a later FIR is a second FIR on the same incident is a mixed question of law and fact; held inapplicable because there the second FIR arose from a different incident, involved different persons and a larger conspiracy.
Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 441
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 7, 19
Relied on by the State: a second FIR is permissible where the canvass of the two FIRs and the accused differ; held inapplicable because there only the second FIR alleged a conspiracy, whereas here both did.
Sourabh Garg v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 6337/2021, decided on 21.1.2022
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 7, 19
Coordinate Bench decision relied on by the State; facts almost identical, but Section 219 CrPC was not under consideration there.
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2021) SCC Online 315
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 7
Cited by the State: the Court should ordinarily not usurp the police's jurisdiction to investigate; the wide Section 482 power must be exercised cautiously on settled parameters.

Statutory Provisions