Cross-complaints regarding a common incident involving disputed aggression require trial and cannot be quashed under Section 482.

The Applicants sought to quash FIRs filed against them under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The Applicants contended that they were the original victims of an earlier incident in 2015 and had lodged the first FIR in the current dispute (Station diary No. 4/2017).

The Applicants argued that the Respondent filed a cross-complaint shortly thereafter (Station diary No. 15/2017) as an afterthought and pressure tactic to force a settlement in other criminal proceedings.

The Applicants highlighted that the husband is suffering from polio and they have a young son, suggesting the FIR was filed out of vengeance.

The Respondent argued that since the incident is not disputed, the determination of the "aggressor" is a matter for trial.

1. Whether the cross-complaint filed by the Respondent constitutes an abuse of the process of law or a "counterblast" warranting quashment under Section 482 of the CrPC.

2. Whether a prima facie case exists in the FIR to allow the matter to proceed to trial.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which governs the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), which establishes the categories of cases and stringent criteria under which an FIR may be quashed.

Principle that a "mini trial" cannot be conducted at the stage of exercising quashing jurisdiction.

The Court noted that the factum of the incident and the existence of cross-complaints filed within a short interval are undisputed.

While the Applicants alleged vengeance and "counterblast" tactics, the Court reasoned that because the presence of the petitioners at the scene and the occurrence of the incident were admitted, a prima facie case was established.

The Court emphasized that it is not permitted to conduct a "mini trial" to determine which party was the aggressor or if allegations were exaggerated; such factual determinations are the exclusive province of the Trial Court where evidence can be tested via cross-examination.

The Court found no merit in the petitions and rejected both applications for quashing; the interim relief was vacated, the rule was discharged, and the parties were directed to face trial where the veracity of the allegations would be tested.