Case-and-counter-case procedure governs both complaints; delay alone does not warrant quashing the counter-case.

The petitioners sought to quash FIR No. 73/2023, registered on 8 April 2023 on respondent No. 2’s complaint, alleging offences under Sections 506, 341, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The complaint concerned an incident on 7 April 2023, stated to have occurred at 3:00 p.m.

The petitioners had themselves lodged a complaint concerning the same incident, registered as Crime No. 71/2023 on 7 April 2023 for alleged offences under Sections 511, 427, 504 and 354 IPC; that complaint did not specify the incident time.

The petitioners argued that respondent No. 2’s complaint was delayed and retaliatory, relying on Anita Maurya v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

1. Whether FIR No. 73/2023 should be quashed as a delayed, retaliatory complaint concerning an incident already reported in Crime No. 71/2023

2. Whether the two FIRs, arising from the same incident, should be treated as a case and counter-case and dealt with under the procedure laid down in State of Karnataka v. Hosakeri Ningappa

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC, under which the petitioners sought quashing.

It relied on the Full Bench decision in State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police v. Hosakeri Ningappa, ILR 2012 KAR 509: case and counter-case investigations should be conducted by the same investigating officer, prosecuted by different prosecutors, and tried by the same court, with judgments pronounced one after the other; failure to follow that procedure does not automatically vitiate proceedings, absent prejudice or failure of justice.

The Court distinguished Anita Maurya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1519, as addressing unexplained delay in a complaint rather than the procedure for a case and counter-case.

The Court treated the two FIRs as alleging practically the same incident and therefore as a case and counter-case.

It held that Anita Maurya did not govern the procedural question before it, because that decision concerned delay rather than the handling of cross-cases.

Bound by the Full Bench ruling in Hosakeri Ningappa, the Court declined to quash Crime No. 73/2023 and left the investigation agency to follow the applicable case-and-counter-case procedure.

The Court left open the petitioners’ right to challenge any adverse report filed in connection with respondent No. 2’s complaint.