Cross-FIRs arising from the same incident should be tried analogously when disputed facts require evidence.

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 61/2026, registered at Police Station Nawagarh under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The FIR alleged that, during a dispute over the installation of a wire fence, the petitioners abused, threatened and assaulted the complainant, causing an injury near his left finger; the incident was allegedly witnessed by the complainant’s son and another person.

The petitioner-in-person contended that the FIR was retaliatory and mala fide, had been lodged as a counterblast to a complaint arising from the same incident, and was connected to alleged violations of an interim order in a separate appeal.

The petitioners also challenged the prosecution’s collection of evidence and filing of the charge-sheet.

The Court noted that both sides had lodged FIRs concerning the same incident.

Whether FIR No. 61/2026 should be quashed on the grounds that it was mala fide, retaliatory, or unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Whether the factual disputes arising from the two FIRs should instead be determined by the trial court, with both cases tried analogously.

The FIR invoked Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, concerning the alleged offences and common intention.

Its stated approach was that disputed factual issues should be considered by the trial court on the evidence and material placed by the parties and collected by the prosecution; where two cases arise from the same incident, they should be decided analogously, with transfer to one court if pending before different Magistrates.

Because both parties had lodged FIRs in respect of the same incident, the competing accounts and the petitioner’s allegations of retaliation raised disputed questions of fact.

The Court considered those matters unsuitable for determination in this petition and held that they should be assessed by the trial court on the evidence and prosecution material.

To ensure coordinated consideration of the related proceedings, it directed analogous trial and, if necessary, transfer of one case to the court hearing the other.

It disposed of the petition with a direction that both cases arising from the incident be decided analogously; if they were pending before different Magistrates, the District Judge, Janjgir-Champa, was directed to issue the necessary transfer direction.