73 Persons Allegedly Applied for Medical Internships Using Forged FMGE Certificates; Court Holds Second FIR Permissible When Investigation Reveals Distinct, Wider Criminal Network
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has refused to quash a second FIR registered in connection with an alleged fake Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) certificate racket, holding that the mere existence of an earlier FIR does not create an absolute bar against registration of a subsequent FIR when the investigation uncovers a larger and distinct criminal conspiracy.
Justice Anil Kumar Upman, while dismissing a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Shubham Gurjar, held that the legality of a subsequent FIR must be determined on the basis of the substance, factual foundation, scope and nature of the allegations, and not merely because some accused or offences are common in both FIRs.
The petitioner had sought quashing of FIR No. 08/2026, registered at the Special Police Station-SOG, District ATS & SOG, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. His principal contention was that the FIR constituted a prohibited second FIR arising from the same facts and evidence already investigated in FIR No. 34/2025.
The High Court, however, found a crucial distinction between the two cases.
The first FIR originated from a matrimonial dispute and concerned allegations that Piyush Kumar Trivedi, who had allegedly failed to clear the FMGE, applied for internship in the Rajasthan Medical Council on the basis of a forged FMGE certificate. At the time of registration of the first FIR, there was no allegation of any organised network or larger conspiracy involving multiple persons.
During the investigation, however, authorities allegedly discovered that the forged certificate had been procured through the present petitioner and that the matter extended far beyond the individual case. The investigation ultimately identified approximately 73 persons who had allegedly applied for internships using such forged FMGE certificates. The probe consequently expanded into an alleged network involved in the preparation, procurement and supply of forged FMGE certificates to foreign medical graduates who had failed to qualify the FMGE.
‘Same Facts’ Test, Not Merely Same Accused or Offences
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgments in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and other cases to explain the law governing successive FIRs.
The Court reiterated that where a subsequent FIR is merely another version, elaboration or continuation of the same occurrence, it would ordinarily be impermissible. However, where investigation reveals a distinct transaction, wider criminal design or larger conspiracy, a subsequent FIR may be legally sustainable.
The Court particularly emphasised that mere discovery of additional evidence or additional accused persons relating to the same offence would ordinarily not justify a second FIR. But where genuinely new facts reveal a substantially different facet of criminality—such as a large-scale conspiracy, organised fraud, systemic corruption or extensive forgery—a fresh FIR may be permissible.
From One Forged Certificate to 73 Applicants, Revealing a Larger Syndicate
The High Court observed that the first FIR was essentially confined to an individual allegation concerning Piyush Kumar Trivedi, whereas the subsequent FIR arose from the discovery of a larger and organised network involving several persons and multiple instances of alleged preparation and use of forged FMGE certificates.
The Court therefore concluded that the second FIR could not be treated as being founded upon the very same set of facts as the first FIR.
“Merely because the petitioner figures as an accused in both investigations and penal provisions happen to be common” was not sufficient to invalidate the subsequent FIR, the Court held, noting that the second FIR had a distinct and wider factual foundation.
Importantly, investigation in both FIRs had already been completed and charge-sheets had been filed. The High Court left it to the trial court to assess, on the basis of evidence, whether the accused was directly involved in the alleged offences.
The Court also cautioned that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, are to be exercised very sparingly and only where the Court is satisfied that there has been an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that FIR No. 08/2026 was not liable to be quashed merely because FIR No. 34/2025 had been registered earlier.