Cross-FIRs arising from the same incident should not be quashed where disputed facts require trial.

The applicants sought quashing of FIR No. 11191023260011 of 2026, registered on 9 January 2026 at Vadaj Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for offences under Sections 115(2), 296(b) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The FIR arose from a neighbourhood dispute in which Applicant No. 2 allegedly recorded the complainant, resulting in a quarrel. The applicants were alleged to have assaulted the complainant’s son, Harshil, who received medical treatment.

The applicants relied on a cross-FIR lodged against the complainant and her son, CCTV footage showing a mutual altercation, and injuries allegedly sustained by the applicants’ side.

The medical material recorded injuries including abrasions, swelling, tenderness and a thumb injury suffered by a 17-year-old person involved in the incident.

The CCTV footage indicated a free fight between the neighbours, while both FIRs presented competing versions of the same occurrence.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to quash the FIR arising from a neighbourhood altercation when a cross-FIR and competing versions of the same incident exist.

Whether the disputed question of who was the aggressor, and the truth or falsity of the allegations, could be determined at the stage of considering a petition for quashing the FIR.

Whether the allegations and investigation material disclosed a prima facie case warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings.

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, while requiring cautious and exceptional exercise of that jurisdiction.

In cases involving cross-FIRs arising from the same incident, the Court held that conflicting versions ordinarily require adjudication at trial, since the truthfulness of the allegations depends upon witness testimony, cross-examination, medical evidence and electronic or forensic material.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , AIR 1992 SC 604, which recognises that quashing jurisdiction should not ordinarily be exercised where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence, except in exceptional circumstances where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice.

The Court further applied the principle that the High Court cannot assess disputed facts or act as a fact-finding court while exercising inherent jurisdiction.

The Court found that the medical certificate and other investigation material disclosed injuries consistent with the alleged assault, thereby establishing a prima facie case.

Although the CCTV footage suggested a free fight and both sides had suffered injuries, these circumstances did not conclusively establish that the applicants were innocent or that the complainant’s version was false.

The existence of a cross-FIR created competing versions of the same incident, making it inappropriate for the High Court to decide who initiated the quarrel or who was the aggressor at the quashing stage.

Such questions required evaluation of evidence by the trial court.

Since the allegations did not fall within the exceptional categories warranting interference under the Bhajan Lal principles, the Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

The application for quashing was therefore found devoid of merit and was rejected; the Rule was discharged.

The connected applications for amendment and stay were also disposed of in view of the disposal of the main matter.