In a sharp reminder that justice demands a full story, the Supreme Court has declared that in disputes involving cross-FIRs, investigative agencies cannot selectively pursue one complaint while discarding the other. Both must be examined together, the Court emphasized, to ensure the search for truth isn’t half-blind.
In its decision, the Court warned against the “imprudent” practice of quashing one FIR while allowing the other to proceed. “The object of investigation is the discovery of truth,” it noted, stressing that truth often lives in the gray areas between opposing narratives.
The ruling came in a case where the Delhi High Court had quashed one side’s FIR, much to the grievance of the appellant. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, turning that decision on its head, ordered that both FIRs should stand and be investigated thoroughly.
At the center of the controversy were two separate FIRs, each accusing the other party of criminal conduct. The Court reasoned that an isolated probe would create a lopsided investigation, where crucial evidence could easily be overlooked.
“In cross-FIR situations, an investigation into only one version would amount to shutting one eye while searching for the truth,” the Court observed, cautioning that whether the receipts in the case were genuine or fabricated could only be determined if both complaints were allowed to unfold to their natural conclusions.
The ruling leaned on the precedent set in Nathi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Supreme Court had previously ruled that cross-cases must be tried by the same judge to avoid conflicting decisions. Extending that logic, the Court underscored that simultaneous investigation was essential too.
Reviving the appellant’s quashed FIR, the Court allowed the appeal, signaling a broader reminder to all investigative bodies: when two sides tell competing stories, neither can be silenced before the facts are fully unearthed.
