An FIR in a case-and-counter-case cannot be quashed while investigation remains nascent.

Two cases arose from an incident at Gokulam Burial Ground, Mysuru: Crime No. 17/2024, registered on the petitioners’ complaint, and Crime No. 18/2024, registered on respondent No. 2’s complaint.

The petitioners alleged that the latter complaint was false and sought to quash its FIR, which charged offences under Sections 506, 341, 34, 504 and 323 IPC.

The High Court considered the petition while the investigation was at an early stage.

Whether the FIR in Crime No. 18/2024 should be quashed on the petitioners’ contention that it was a false counter-complaint?

Whether the existence of case and counter-case required the FIR to be quashed while investigation was still at a nascent stage?

The petition invoked Articles 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in State of Karnataka v. Hosakeri Ningappa, ILR 2012 KAR 509, which directs that case and counter-case be investigated by the same investigating officer, prosecuted by different public prosecutors, and tried by the same court, with judgments pronounced simultaneously.

The Full Bench further held that failure to follow this procedure does not automatically vitiate proceedings; prejudice and failure of justice must be shown, consistently with Section 465 CrPC.

Evidence in one case cannot ordinarily be considered in the other unless it is lawfully brought on record.

The Court treated the two FIRs as case and counter-case arising from the same incident.

It considered the procedure laid down in Hosakeri Ningappa relevant to how those cases should proceed, but held that the petitioners’ challenge did not justify quashing the FIR at the investigation stage.

The investigation was still nascent, and the Court therefore declined to determine the competing complaints on their merits.

It reserved the petitioners’ right to challenge any adverse report, if one followed.