The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that when two criminal cases arise from a single, closely-timed incident involving reciprocal allegations, they must be tried together to ensure consistency in fact-finding and prevent contradictory outcomes. This ruling clarifies the judicial approach to cross-cases under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and reinforces procedural coherence in complex interpersonal violence matters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute originated from a violent altercation on the night of 12 October 2024 in Gali No. 4, Mohan Nagar, Ujjain, during a post-Visarjan procession. Two FIRs were registered at the same police station within hours of each other, each accusing the other party of initiating the violence. Crime No. 720/2024 alleged that Sonu and Dharmendra assaulted Aryan Meena, Deepanshu Meena, and Krishna, resulting in Krishna’s death 21 days later from head injuries. Crime No. 721/2024 alleged that Aryan, Deepanshu, and Yashpal broke into Sonu’s home, assaulted him with iron rods and knives, and injured his family members. Both incidents were reported to have occurred within 15 minutes of each other at the same locality.
Procedural History
- 12 October 2024: Dual incidents occur in close succession in the same neighborhood.
- 13 October 2024: Two FIRs registered at P.S. Chimanganj Mandi - Crime No. 720/2024 and Crime No. 721/2024.
- 8 August 2025: Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) declined to treat the cases as cross-cases and ordered separate trials.
- October 2025: Two separate criminal revisions were filed - one by Lalita (injured in Crime 721), another by Sonu (@ Son Kumar) - both challenging the JMFC’s order.
- 27 October 2025 & 7 October 2025: Two Additional Sessions Judges, acting independently, set aside the JMFC’s order and directed that both cases be tried together by the Court of Sessions.
- November 2025: Petitions under Section 528 of BNS, 2023 were filed before the High Court challenging these revisional orders.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the revisional orders directing consolidation of trials, arguing that the incidents were materially distinct in time, place, and nature, and that consolidation would deprive them of their statutory right to appeal before the Court of Sessions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether two criminal cases arising from reciprocal allegations during a single, closely-timed altercation in the same locality must be tried together under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to avoid conflicting findings and ensure judicial efficiency.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the two incidents were distinct in time (8:00 PM vs. 10:15 PM), location (public alley vs. private residence), and nature (unprovoked assault vs. home invasion). Relying on State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar, the petitioner argued that mere proximity in time and place does not establish a single transaction. They further asserted that consolidation would prejudice their right to appeal, as the Court of Sessions would be trying both cases simultaneously, potentially limiting their ability to challenge evidence separately.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the incidents were part of a single chain of events triggered by a prior dispute over garba celebrations, with both parties engaging in reciprocal violence within 15 minutes. Citing Sudhir & Others v. State of M.P., the State argued that the doctrine of cross-cases applies when the allegations are interlinked and arise from the same sequence of events. Consolidation, they submitted, was necessary to prevent contradictory testimonies and ensure a coherent reconstruction of facts.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the case diaries of both FIRs and found that the incidents occurred within a 15-minute window, in the same narrow lane of Mohan Nagar, and stemmed from an ongoing dispute over cultural festivities. The Court emphasized that Section 528 of BNS, 2023 empowers revisional courts to direct consolidation where multiple cases arise from the same transaction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.
"The case diary reveals a continuous chain of events initiated by mutual provocation, followed by reciprocal violence within minutes, in the same locality. To try them separately would invite conflicting narratives and undermine the truth-seeking function of the trial court."
The Court distinguished State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar, noting that case involved entirely separate altercations on different days, whereas here, the sequence was continuous and contextually interdependent. The Court also rejected the argument that consolidation would deprive the petitioners of appeal rights, clarifying that the right to appeal remains intact under Section 374 of BNS, 2023, regardless of whether cases are tried jointly.
The Court further noted that two revisional courts independently reached the same conclusion, indicating a consistent judicial understanding of the facts. The filing of two separate revisions against the same order was deemed an abuse of process, but did not invalidate the substantive correctness of the consolidation order.
The Verdict
The petitioners’ challenge was dismissed. The Court held that cross-cases arising from a single, closely-timed incident with reciprocal allegations in the same locality must be tried together to ensure factual consistency and judicial economy. The right to appeal remains unaffected, and consolidation does not prejudice any party’s substantive rights.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cross-Cases Are Presumed to Be Linked
- Practitioners must now presume that reciprocal FIRs registered within 30 minutes in the same locality, arising from a prior dispute, constitute a single transaction under Section 528 of BNS, 2023.
- Opposing counsel must proactively argue why cases should NOT be consolidated, rather than assuming they are separate.
- The burden shifts to the party seeking separation to demonstrate clear temporal, spatial, or factual disconnection.
Judicial Efficiency Overrides Procedural Formalism
- Courts will prioritize avoiding conflicting verdicts over rigid adherence to separate FIRs.
- Lawyers should prepare joint defense or prosecution strategies early, anticipating consolidation.
- Evidence collection must account for potential cross-examination on both cases, even if initially filed separately.
Appeal Rights Are Not Compromised by Consolidation
- Consolidation does not extinguish the right to appeal under Section 374 of BNS, 2023.
- Petitioners cannot challenge consolidation on grounds of denied appeal rights - this is a misconception.
- Appellate courts will examine each accused’s role independently, even in joint trials.
