In Cases Of Cross-FIRs, Unfair To Quash One FIR While Probing The Other; Both Be Investigated Together : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court yesterday (April 29) ruled that in cases involving cross-FIRs, it would be imprudent to quash one FIR and investigate another FIR. Instead, the investigative agency must examine both the FIRs, as truth-seeking requires examining both sides of the dispute comprehensively.

“this Court is of the opinion that in cases involving cross-FIRs, it would be prudent and fair if the investigation was carried out in a comprehensive manner. After all, the object of the investigation is the discovery of truth.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan was hearing the matter where the cross-FIRs were registered (two separate FIRs filed by opposing parties alleging criminal wrongdoing by the other). The Appellant was aggrieved by the Delhi High Court's decision to quash his FIR against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Reversing the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Manmohan observed that the High Court erred in quashing the Appellant's FIR, emphasizing the need for a holistic investigation into both FIRs.

According to the Court, investigating agencies must examine both FIRs simultaneously and not in isolation, as evidence in one FIR cannot be ignored while probing the other.

"In the present case, in view of cross-FIRs, the investigating authority will conclude that either the receipts in favour of the Appellant are forged and fabricated or that the receipts are genuine. The complicity of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein can only be ascertained once the investigation is permitted to reach its logical conclusion.", the court observed.

Cross-FIRs cases should be tried by the same judge to ensure consistency and fairness

The Court relied on Nathi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1990) SCC (Cri) 638 which held that cross-cases should be tried by the same judge to ensure consistency and fairness. The same logic extends to investigations both FIRs must be probed together to avoid contradictory outcomes.

In terms of the aforesaid observations, the Court allowed the appeal, and revived the FIR against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Case Title: PUNIT BERIWALA VERSUS THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 504

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances:

For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Lokesh Bhola, Adv. Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Nitya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Riya Dhingra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karan Khanuja, Adv. Mr. Kunal Khanuja, Adv. Mr. Pushpendra Singh Bhadoriya, Adv. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR