Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has observed that courts often deal with cases where litigants may not fully grasp what truly serves their best interests. In such situations, the court bears the responsibility of ensuring that substantial justice is delivered, regardless of the litigants' understanding.

Making this observation, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan quashed two FIRs filed in 2017 by members of the Bar in Kodaikanal, Tamil Nadu, involving allegations of assault and verbal abuse. The court held that continuing the proceedings would not serve the personal or professional interests of either party and that quashing the FIRs was in the best interest of justice.

The bench also took a serious view of the appellant threatening to commit suicide if the FIR lodged by him against his colleague was quashed. However, court showed magnanimity after the lawyer tendered an apology and undertaking not to repeat similar behaviour anywhere before any court again.

"We believe that if magnanimity is to be shown by someone, the same should be done by the persons holding the highest constitutional office. Moreover, the first appellant has shown some repentance by tendering an unconditional apology and by giving an undertaking not to repeat such misconduct. In view of this apology and in the peculiar facts of this case, we deem it proper not to initiate any action against the first appellant," the bench said.          

As per facts of the case, the appellant and the second respondent were both members of the Bar and practiced before the courts in Kodaikanal. According to the appellants, on December 18, 2017, the second respondent and two other persons assaulted the appellants. The first appellant lodged an FIR that the fight arose from past animosity, as he had a verbal altercation with the second respondent in the Kodaikanal Court three years back.

The present appeal related to the FIR lodged with regard to the same incident and also registered on December 21, 2017, half an hour after the first FIR. The FIR was registered for alleged assault and the second FIR was for alleged use of filthy language and threatening to kill. 

During the hearing, when the court suggested to the appellants, and in particular, the first appellant, who was present through video conference that both the FIRs could be quashed so that quietus could be given to the dispute between two members of the Bar, the first appellant was bold enough to threaten the court that if the FIR filed by him against the second respondent is quashed, he would commit suicide. Subsequently, however, the petitioner tendered an apology cum undertaking in this regard.

Challenging the Madras High Court's refusal to quash the FIR, the appellants -- the lawyer and his father -- contended that the FIR registered at the instance of the second respondent was a counterblast to the FIR registered by them against the second respondent. Their counsel submitted that the proceeding initiated by the second respondent was nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

The counsel for the second respondent urged that both the FIRs be quashed. He pointed out that the second respondent had taken a fair stand and had tendered an apology to the appellants on oath.   

The bench noted the second respondent had tendered a sincere and unconditional apology not only to the court, but also to the first appellant, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, and the Kodaikanal Bar Association.   

"We thought that the first appellant would reciprocate by showing grace and accept the apology tendered by the second respondent, who is his colleague in the legal profession. However, the first appellant did not do so and went to the extent of giving a threat to this court that in case this court quashes the FIR registered against the second respondent, he would commit suicide. This conduct amounts to interference with the administration of justice. It is contemptuous and unbecoming of a member of the Bar," the bench said. 

However, the first appellant filed an affidavit on March 6, 2025, tendering apology, the bench noted.

An attempt made all along by the court was to bring about a settlement between the first appellant and the second respondent who are members of the Bar practising before the same courts. The reason was that this court felt that both of them, instead of fighting cases against each other, should contribute to the legal system by representing litigants before the court, the bench noted. 

"We felt that the pending cases may adversely affect the professional prospects of both the first appellant and the second respondent," the bench said.

The bench noted as the court was willing to take a broad view and put an end to the dispute, which had been pending for more than seven years, the second respondent responded by tendering an unconditional apology to the first appellant. The court was of the view that if ultimately both the cases go for trial, it will lead to more animosity between the first appellant and the second respondent. Pursuant to the appeal made by the court, the second respondent took a reasonable stand and tendered an unconditional apology. 

However, notwithstanding the best efforts made by the first appellant's own counsel, the first appellant did not understand the importance of settling the dispute rather than aggravating it. He went to the extent of giving a threat to the court. "In normal course, such threats must be taken very seriously by the courts. Action for criminal contempt against the person giving such a threat must be initiated, which should be taken to its logical end, especially when the first appellant is a member of the Bar", the bench said. 

Finally, using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court quashed both the FIR after taking the apology and undertaking of both the parties on record. "We hope and trust that with this order, the past animosity between the first appellant and the second respondent will come to a happy end," the bench said.

Case Title: Ramesh Kumaran & Anr Vs State Through Inspector of Police & Anr