In a crucial ruling dated April 29, 2025, the Supreme Court held that when two First Information Reports (FIRs) arise from the same incident—commonly called cross-FIRs—it would be unfair and legally incorrect to quash one FIR while investigating the other. The Court emphasized that justice requires both FIRs to be examined together to reach the truth.
“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.” — Supreme Court
Read Also:- Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Consumer Protection Act's Pecuniary Jurisdiction Rules
The ruling came in the case titled Punit Beriwala vs. The State of NCT of Delhi and Others. The matter involved two opposing FIRs between the appellant and Respondents No. 2 and 3, where both parties alleged criminal acts against each other related to a disputed property deal.
The Delhi High Court had earlier quashed the FIR filed by Beriwala, which alleged that the respondents fraudulently accepted money and misrepresented ownership of a property worth ₹28 crores. According to Beriwala, he paid ₹1.64 crores based on an agreement where the sellers falsely claimed the property was free of legal encumbrances.
Later, it was revealed that the property had already been mortgaged to financial institutions and sold to J.K. Paper Ltd., with key roles played by the respondents. The appellant learned that one of the accused had been acting as Karta (head) of the family trust at the time, contrary to what was presented during the property agreement.
“Right from the inception, the Appellant was misrepresented, defrauded, deceived with dishonest and fraudulent intent by Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh.” — Supreme Court
Read Also:- Supreme Court Stays Delhi High Court Order to Revise CLAT-UG 2025 Merit List
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan reversed the High Court's decision. The Court clarified that both FIRs—Berwala’s and the counter-FIR filed by the respondents—must be allowed to proceed and investigated together.
The bench referred to the 1990 precedent in Nathi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where it was held that cross-cases must be handled by the same judge to ensure consistency. This principle, the Court said, also applies during the investigation stage to avoid contradictory outcomes.
“Cross-cases should be tried by the same judge… similarly, both FIRs must be probed together to avoid contradictory outcomes.” — Supreme Court, citing Nathi Lal judgment
Read Also:- J&K High Court Grants Bail Extension to NDPS Accused for Daughter’s Surgery on Humanitarian Grounds
The Court also dismissed the argument that delay in filing the FIR weakens the case. It noted that the appellant took action once he became aware of the deceit in 2021 and filed a complaint promptly in 2022.
In its concluding remarks, the Court reinstated FIR No. 94/2022 and allowed the investigation against Respondents No. 2 and 3 to proceed. It stressed that premature quashing of FIRs at an early investigation stage could lead to injustice and should only occur in rare, exceptional cases.
“Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court should not be used in a routine manner according to its whims or caprice.” — Supreme Court
Case Title: PUNIT BERIWALA VERSUS THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
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
