The Rajasthan High Court has clarified the scope of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, holding that multiple FIRs alleging similar offences are permissible if the complainants and factual matrices differ. This judgment underscores the distinction between similar and identical allegations, providing critical guidance for practitioners handling cases involving serial fraud or cheating.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The accused-petitioner, a director of Recent Multi Tech Pvt. Ltd., was implicated in two FIRs registered at Police Station Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa. The complainant in the impugned FIR No. 73/2016 alleged that the petitioner induced investments totaling Rs. 9,10,000 (Rs. 4,40,000 by the complainant and Rs. 4,70,000 by his wife and villagers) between 15.09.2011 and 31.10.2011, promising returns within seven months. When no returns were provided, the complainant lodged FIR No. 73/2016 on 28.04.2016 for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Key Facts
- Investments Made:
- Complainant: Rs. 4,40,000 (five investments on 15.09.2011)
- Complainant: Rs. 10,000 each on 19.10.2011
- Complainant’s wife: Rs. 2,00,000 on 19.10.2011 and Rs. 2,50,000 on 31.10.2011
- Villagers: Amounts not specified, but investments made under similar promises
- Promissory Notes: Executed on Rs. 10/- stamp paper, signed by the petitioner as company director
- Company: Recent Multi Tech Pvt. Ltd., allegedly operating from Jaipur
- Modus Operandi: Promise of doubling investments within seven months
Procedural History
- 07.05.2012: FIR No. 105/2012 lodged by Mannaram S/o Ramsahay at the same police station, alleging similar fraud by the petitioner
- Investigation of FIR No. 105/2012: Complainant’s statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC; challan filed
- 28.04.2016: Impugned FIR No. 73/2016 registered by the present complainant
- Filing of Petition: Accused-petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3966/2016 under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 73/2016
- 07.05.2026: Arguments concluded; order reserved
- 19.06.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- Contended that FIR No. 73/2016 is barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits double jeopardy
- Argued that the allegations in FIR No. 73/2016 are identical to those in FIR No. 105/2012, where the complainant was a witness
- Submitted that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence
For the Respondent/State
- Argued that FIR No. 73/2016 involves different complainants and distinct factual allegations
- Submitted that no investigation was conducted in FIR No. 105/2012 regarding the allegations in the impugned FIR
- Contended that prima facie evidence exists to warrant a detailed investigation under the impugned FIR
- Highlighted that multiple complainants have lodged similar cases against the petitioner, each involving separate transactions
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India bars the registration of a second FIR when the allegations are similar but not identical, and the complainants are different.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- Relied on Article 20(2) to argue that the petitioner was being subjected to double jeopardy
- Cited the principle that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once
- Emphasized that the complainant in FIR No. 73/2016 was a witness in FIR No. 105/2012, and the allegations stem from the same fraudulent scheme
For the Respondent
- Distinguished the allegations in the two FIRs, arguing that they involve different complainants and separate transactions
- Submitted that the investigation of FIR No. 105/2012 did not cover the allegations in FIR No. 73/2016
- Contended that prima facie evidence exists to justify prosecution under the impugned FIR
- Highlighted that fraudulent schemes often involve multiple victims, each entitled to seek redress
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Article 20(2), which states: "> No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once." The Court noted that this constitutional protection applies only when the same set of facts and same offence are involved in multiple prosecutions.
"In the present case, the Court finds that though the allegations in the earlier FIR No.105/2012 wherein, the present complainant was a witness may be similar but are not same as the allegations in the present impugned FIR. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused-petitioner is being prosecuted twice for the same allegations."
The Court observed that while the allegations in both FIRs pertained to fraud or cheating, the complainants and specific transactions differed. The impugned FIR involved investments by the complainant and his wife, whereas FIR No. 105/2012 involved a different complainant (Mannaram). The Court emphasized that the investigation of FIR No. 105/2012 did not cover the allegations in the impugned FIR, and no findings were recorded regarding the latter.
The Court further clarified that in cases of fraud involving multiple victims, each victim is entitled to lodge a separate FIR, as the facts of each case are distinct even if the allegations are similar. The Court relied on the principle that Article 20(2) does not bar multiple prosecutions if the offences arise from different factual matrices.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition, holding that:
- The petitioner is not being prosecuted twice for the same offence under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
- The allegations in FIR No. 73/2016 involve different complainants and separate transactions from those in FIR No. 105/2012.
- The impugned FIR discloses a prima facie case warranting investigation, and the petitioner must face trial.
The petition under Section 482 CrPC was accordingly dismissed. No costs or specific directions were issued.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Double Jeopardy Does Not Bar Multiple FIRs for Distinct Transactions
- Distinct Complainants: Practitioners must emphasize that Article 20(2) applies only when the same complainant and same set of facts are involved. Multiple FIRs by different complainants are permissible.
- Separate Transactions: Even if the allegations are similar (e.g., fraud), each transaction with a distinct victim constitutes a separate offence. Courts will not quash FIRs merely because the modus operandi is identical.
- Investigation Gaps: If an earlier FIR did not cover certain allegations, a subsequent FIR cannot be quashed on double jeopardy grounds. Highlight any gaps in the investigation of the earlier FIR to strengthen the case for prosecution.
Prima Facie Evidence Suffices for Trial
- No Quashing at Initial Stage: Courts are reluctant to quash FIRs under Section 482 CrPC if prima facie evidence exists. The standard for quashing is high, and the accused must demonstrate that no offence is disclosed.
- Focus on Factual Distinctions: When opposing quashing petitions, practitioners should meticulously distinguish the facts of each FIR, emphasizing:
- Different complainants
- Separate dates of transactions
- Distinct amounts or documents involved
- Lack of investigation in earlier FIRs regarding the impugned allegations
Implications for Serial Fraud Cases
- Multiple Victims: In cases involving serial fraud (e.g., Ponzi schemes, investment frauds), each victim can lodge a separate FIR. Article 20(2) will not operate as a bar.
- Evidence Collection: Prosecutors should ensure that investigations cover all victims and transactions. Failure to do so may lead to subsequent FIRs, as seen in this case.
- Defence Strategy: Accused persons should argue that the allegations are identical and not merely similar, and that the complainant in the impugned FIR was already a witness in an earlier case.
This judgment reinforces the principle that double jeopardy is narrowly construed, and multiple prosecutions are permissible if the factual matrices differ. Practitioners must carefully analyze the distinctiveness of each transaction to determine the applicability of Article 20(2).
