Rajasthan High Court permits separate FIR probe into alleged organised cyber-fraud network, rejects plea citing “second FIR” bar

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR No. 46/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ganganagar, for offences under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 111(6), 317(2), 317(5), 318(4) and 61(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The petitioners contended that FIR No. 46/2025 was an impermissible second FIR arising from the same transaction as earlier FIR No. 38/2025, registered at Police Station Purani Abadi for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC.

The State submitted that FIR No. 38/2025 concerned an individual cheating complaint and that a Final Report had been submitted because the alleged occurrence fell outside the concerned police station’s territorial jurisdiction.

During investigation, searches allegedly resulted in the recovery of cash, ATM cards, laptops, computers, rubber stamps, cheque books, mobile phones and property documents.

1. Whether FIR No. 46/2025 was liable to be quashed as an impermissible second FIR concerning the same incident or transaction as FIR No. 38/2025?

2. Whether the provisions of the BNS could be invoked where the earlier complaint related to an occurrence allegedly committed in 2023, before the BNS came into force?

3. Whether the material relied upon by the prosecution, including recoveries of electronic devices and financial instruments, prima facie attracted Section 111 BNS relating to organised crime?

4. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR while investigation was still in progress?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The governing rule on successive FIRs is that a second FIR relating to the same incident, occurrence or transaction is ordinarily impermissible; however, a separate FIR is legally permissible where the subsequent information discloses a distinct incident or criminal activity, a wider conspiracy, substantially different scope, or previously unknown facts.

This principle was drawn from T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, and the principles summarised in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 INSC 248.

The Court also applied the principle from M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 10 SCC 118, that an FIR should not ordinarily be quashed when its allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences; the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial, assess evidentiary sufficiency, or interfere with an ongoing investigation except in exceptional cases.

The Court held that FIR No. 38/2025 concerned an individual complaint of cheating, whereas FIR No. 46/2025 allegedly involved a substantially wider criminal scheme comprising multiple bank accounts, cyber-fraud complaints, Forex/USDT transactions, inducement of several persons, alleged employment-related fraud and acquisition of properties from alleged proceeds of crime.

Applying Surendra Singh Rathore, the Court found that the earlier transaction could prima facie form part of a larger cyber-fraud conspiracy and that the fact that the material surfaced during investigation of the earlier FIR did not, by itself, invalidate the subsequent FIR.

On the BNS issue, the Court declined to quash the FIR merely because the earlier transaction related to 2023.

Since the subsequent FIR was not confined to that transaction and allegedly concerned distinct activities, the temporal applicability of particular BNS provisions would depend on when the acts forming those offences were committed and could be determined during investigation.

Regarding Section 111 BNS, the Court accepted that mere recovery of ATM cards, electronic devices, cheque books or other articles would not independently establish organised crime.

However, the prosecution case also relied on alleged links between bank accounts and mobile numbers, numerous cyber-fraud complaints, multiple victims, routing of funds and acquisition of property from alleged crime proceeds.

These allegations prima facie disclosed cognizable offences requiring investigation.

Accordingly, under the principles in Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court declined to undertake a detailed evidentiary assessment or determine at the FIR stage whether every ingredient of Section 111 BNS would ultimately be proved.

It further held that the FIR could not be quashed merely on the ground that the earlier complaint related to 2023 or that the applicability of Section 111 BNS might ultimately fail.

No case for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS was made out.

The petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 46/2025 was accordingly dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.