Case and counter-cases arising from the same occurrence must be investigated conjointly by one Investigating Officer.

Crime No. 10/2025 was registered against the petitioners following an occurrence that also resulted in a counter-case, Crime No. 11/2025, against respondent No. 2.

The petitioners claimed that they sustained injuries and were hospitalised.

The two crimes, arising from the same incident, were investigated by different officers—a Police Inspector in Crime No. 10/2025 and a Police Sub-Inspector in Crime No. 11/2025—and separate charge-sheets were filed.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2020/2025, contending that separate investigations had produced fragmented accounts of the same occurrence.

The State and respondent No. 2 argued that the allegations should be tested at trial and that the counter-case charge-sheet had not been separately challenged.

1. Whether two crimes arising from the same occurrence and constituting a case and counter-case may be investigated by different Investigating Officers, with separate final reports, without compromising a fair and comprehensive investigation.

2. Whether the High Court may quash the proceedings in the challenged case and direct de novo investigation in both cases, notwithstanding that the counter-case charge-sheet was not independently challenged.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; Sections 4, 173, 175, 176 and 193 BNSS govern the application of criminal procedure to BNS offences, registration and investigation of cognizable cases, and submission of the police report.

In State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others, (2003) 9 SCC 426, the Supreme Court stressed the need to ascertain the genesis of a common occurrence and to have case and counter-case dealt with so as to avoid conflicting conclusions.

Abdul Majid Sab and Others v. State of Karnataka by Ripponpete Police, ILR 2010 KAR 1719, requires the investigation to address both versions and the genesis of the occurrence.

Relying also on Sri Shivaraja v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P. No. 10272 of 2026 (21 July 2026), the Court held that where case and counter-case arise from one incident, separate investigations by different officers may warrant setting aside the resulting proceedings and conducting de novo investigation by one officer.

The Court found that Crimes Nos. 10/2025 and 11/2025 arose from the same occurrence, but had been investigated independently by different officers, producing separate charge-sheets.

Because the injuries, medical evidence, sequence and genesis of the incident, and possible private defence were interrelated, the investigations needed to examine both versions together; the defect concerned the structure and comprehensiveness of the investigation, not the sufficiency of evidence or the merits of either version.

The unchallenged status of the counter-case charge-sheet did not prevent the Court from moulding effective relief under Section 528 BNSS, since leaving that investigation intact would preserve one part of the same procedural defect.

The Court therefore applied Sri Shivaraja and directed a fresh, impartial investigation of both crimes by the same officer.

The investigation and consequential proceedings in counter-case Crime No. 11/2025, insofar as founded on the separate investigation, were also set aside.

The State was directed to entrust both crimes to the same Investigating Officer, preferably not below the rank of Police Inspector, for de novo investigation and submission of an appropriate report under Section 193 BNSS within three months.

All contentions on the merits were left open.