Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become a common approach for improving the factuality of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet its reliability remains highly sensitive to how external evidence is retrieved and used. Semantically equivalent queries with different syntactic forms may lead to different retrieval results, while irrelevant or misleading documents can further induce hallucinated answers. Existing multi-path reasoning methods improve robustness by sampling multiple candidate answers and applying voting- or confidence-based selection, but they still face two limitations: diversity is often injected through uncontrollable decoding randomness, and answer evaluation is usually confined to a single query-induced evidence view. To address these limitations, we propose a Cross-Query Consistency Hypothesis: correct answers tend to maintain high confidence across semantically equivalent but syntactically diverse queries, whereas noise-induced hallucinations exhibit unstable confidence under such query variations. Based on this hypothesis, we introduce CQC-RAG, a framework that co-designs query-level diversity injection with cross-query consistency evaluation. CQC-RAG rewrites the original question into diverse but meaning-preserving queries, reranks a shared document pool to construct query-conditioned reasoning contexts, applies an evidence-grounded protocol to extract answer-evidence pairs and selects answers according to their confidence stability across these contexts. This design enables self-evaluation without external supervision and does not rely on expanded retrieval coverage. Experiments on four open-domain question answering benchmarks show that CQC-RAG outperforms the strongest previous multi-query baseline by +4.76 pp EM on TriviaQA and +9.12 pp EM on MuSiQue, validating the effectiveness of cross-query consistency for filtering noise-induced hallucinations.