Second FIR involving different complainant doesn’t violate Article 20(2): Raj HC dismisses quashing plea

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash an FIR for cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, holding that a second FIR registered at the instance of a different complainant on similar but not identical facts does not attract the double jeopardy bar under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

Justice Ganesh Ram Meena observed that while the allegations in two FIRs registered against the same accused may be similar in general character — both arising from investment fraud through a company — the complainants were distinct individuals whose specific grievances constituted separate factual matrices. The mere similarity in the nature of the offence, the Court held, could not convert two independent complaints into a prosecution for the same offence.

“Whenever a fraud or cheating is played by an accused with different person then certainly all those different persons may lodge separate criminal cases as the facts of each case are different though the allegations may be similar i.e. fraud or cheating. Merely because of the allegations of fraud or cheating are similar in each of the case but the complainant and the allegations of fraud or cheating are different in each case than it cannot be said that a second FIR has been registered on the same facts,” the bench stated.

The petitioner, Ramjilal, faced FIR No. 73/2016 registered at Police Station Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The complainant, Ramawtar, alleged that he first encountered the petitioner at a seminar of Recent Multi Tech Pvt. Ltd. in August 2011, where he was told that the company’s Jaipur office was accepting investments that would be doubled within seven months. On the strength of this representation, Ramawtar made five investments totalling Rs. 4,40,000 on Sep 15, 2011, each evidenced by a promissory note on ten-rupee stamp paper bearing the petitioner’s signature as the company’s Director. Two further investments of Rs. 10,000 each were made on Oct 19, 2011. His wife, Bhagwati Devi, separately invested Rs. 2,00,000 on Oct 19, 2011 and Rs. 2,50,000 on Oct 31, 2011. No returns materialised even after the promised period, and several others from the complainant’s village who had similarly invested were also left unpaid.

Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Gajendra Vyas submitted that an earlier FIR No. 105/2012 had already been registered at the same police station at the instance of one Mannaram in respect of substantially similar fraud by the accused. During the investigation of FIR No. 105/2012, the statement of the present complainant Ramawtar had been recorded under Section 161 CrPC and a challan had been filed. Counsel argued that two FIRs could not be maintained on the same set of facts and that the petitioner could not be made an accused twice for the same offence, invoking the protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

The Public Prosecutor countered that the investigation of FIR No. 105/2012 had not addressed the specific allegations of Ramawtar at all. The fact that his statement was recorded as a witness in that case did not mean his independent grievance had been investigated or adjudicated. The closure report filed in FIR No. 105/2012 contained no findings on the allegations forming the subject matter of FIR No. 73/2016, and therefore the two FIRs could not be treated as arising from the same facts.

The Court, on perusal of the investigation report of FIR No. 105/2012 alongside the allegations in the impugned FIR, confirmed that the investigating officer had returned no findings on Ramawtar’s specific claims. The Court additionally noted that the Public Prosecutor had disclosed that several other complaints of a similar nature had been lodged against the accused by different individuals — a circumstance that only reinforced the view that each case arose from a distinct act of alleged fraud against a separate complainant.

Engaging with the constitutional argument, the Court held that Article 20(2) bars prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once. On the facts before it, however, the allegations in both FIRs, though similar in nature, were not the same: the complainants differed, the specific transactions differed, and each FIR disclosed its own distinct factual foundation. “The allegations in both the FIRs may be similar but they are not same,” the Court held. The contents of the impugned FIR, read at face value, disclosed a prima facie cognizable case warranting investigation, and the Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The petition was accordingly dismissed. The stay application and all pending applications were disposed of in terms of the order.

Title: Ramjilal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3966/2016

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:23325]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Gajendra Vyas

Counsel for respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Ritesh Jain with Dr. Ramdev Arya for complainant