Holding

The Supreme Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142, quashed FIR No. 500 of 2017 in its entirety and FIR No. 499 of 2017 as against the second respondent, on account of the parties' unconditional apologies and the interest of justice.

Summary

The dispute involved two lawyers practicing before the same courts in Kodaikanal who filed cross‑FIRs against each other for the same incident on 18 December 2017, alleging assault, threats and injury. Both FIRs named the same offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the IPC, and the matter had been pending for several years. The Supreme Court, invoking its power under Article 142, sought an amicable settlement and received unconditional written apologies and undertakings from both parties, despite the first appellant’s earlier threat to commit suicide if his FIR was quashed. Considering the apologies, the professional interests of the lawyers, and the desire to prevent further animosity, the Court decided to quash the second FIR entirely and the first FIR only as against the second respondent. The Court also refrained from initiating contempt proceedings against the first appellant, noting his repentance, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether cross‑FIRs arising from the same incident between two members of the Bar can be quashed under the Court's powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Whether unconditional apologies and undertakings by the parties justify quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Whether the first appellant’s threat to commit suicide constitutes contempt that should preclude quashing of the FIRs.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 142
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 294(b), s. 323, s. 506(1)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Cross-FIRs related to the same incident and for the same offences, with allegations and counter-allegations, were filed by two lawyers against each other. The Supreme Court explored the possibility of an amicable settlement between – Art.142 – Cross-FIRs related to same incident and for the same offences, filed by two lawyers against each other – Both lawyers practising before the same Courts – Incident arose due to past animosity – Unconditional apology and undertakings tendered by both

Subjects

Quashing of FIRArticle 142First Information ReportUnconditional apologyCross FIRsLegal profession ethicsContempt

Judgment

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1245 : 2025 INSC 405

Ramesh Kumaran & Anr.
v.
State Through The Inspector of Police & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1318 of 2025)
27 March 2025
[Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Cross-FIRs related to the same incident and for the same offences,
with allegations and counter-allegations, were filed by two lawyers
against each other. The Supreme Court explored the possibility of
an amicable settlement between the parties.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.142 – Cross-FIRs related to same
incident and for the same offences, filed by two lawyers against
each other – Both lawyers practising before the same Courts –
Incident arose due to past animosity – Unconditional apology
and undertakings tendered by both parties – Supreme Court
taking a broad view in the peculiar facts – In view of personal
and professional interests of both the parties, proceedings
based on both the FIRs quashed in pursuance of directions
passed u/Art.142 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 323 and
506(1). [Paras 13, 16 and 17]

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Quashing of FIR; Article 142 of Constitution of India; First
Information Report; Unconditional apology.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1318 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2023 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLOP(MD) No. 15913 of 2019
* Author
1246 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Vairawan A.S, Ms. Jaswanthi A, Ms. Aaina Verma, Amit Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Ms. Jahnavi Taneja,
Danish Saifi, A Velan, Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Prince Singh, Nilay Rai.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Abhay S. Oka, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. This appeal arises out of a dispute between the first appellant
and the second respondent who are both members of the Bar and
practise before the Courts in Kodaikanal. The second appellant is
the father of the first appellant. Two First Information Reports (for
short, ‘FIR’) were registered as a result of a dispute between the first
appellant and the second respondent. According to the appellants, on
18th December 2017, the second respondent and two other persons
assaulted the appellants. Therefore, FIR No.499 of 2017, which was
the first FIR, was registered at the instance of the first appellant. It
is alleged in the said FIR that at 4.45 pm on 18th December 2017,
while the first appellant was walking near Kodaikanal Lake, the
second respondent and two unidentified persons were drinking
alcohol in a car. The allegation is that the said three persons
assaulted the first appellant. Thereafter, the second respondent
punched the first appellant on the nose with his right hand. The
nose started bleeding. The first appellant has alleged in the 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. Accordingly, FIR No. 499 of 2017 was registered on 21st
December 2017 at 8.30 pm alleging the commission of offences
under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) against the second respondent and two other
persons. According to the appellants, charge sheet has already
been filed in the said case.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1247

Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v.
State Through The Inspector of Police & Anr.

2. The present appeal relates to the second FIR, which is FIR No.500
of 2017, registered at the instance of the second respondent against
the appellants. It related to the same incident and was also registered
on 21st December 2017, half an hour after FIR No.499# of 2017
was registered. The allegation made by the second respondent is
that on 18th December 2017, while he was standing near Sterling
Resort near the Kodaikanal Lake, the first appellant came there
and abused him with filthy words and started verbally arguing with
him. Thereafter, he called the second appellant on the phone, and
both of them abused him with foul language. They also threatened
him, stating that since he belonged to another city, he should leave
this city or they would kill him. Therefore, FIR No. 500 of 2017 was
registered at the instance of the second respondent for the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the IPC. It
appears that a closure report was filed by the police. Thereafter, the
second respondent filed a protest petition on which cognizance was
taken by the Judicial Magistrate at Kodaikanal on 1st October, 2019.
Therefore, the appellants filed a petition before the High Court for
quashing the criminal proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate at
Kodaikanal. By the impugned judgment dated 29th September, 2023,
the High Court has dismissed the petition.
3. When the SLP against the impugned judgment came up for hearing
on 9th July 2024, this Court issued notice and stayed the criminal
proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal. On
21st October 2024, this Court passed the following order:
“None appears for the petitioners.
List on 29th November, 2024.
We are of the view that as the prosecution arises out of
a dispute between the two members of the Bar, it will be
in the interest of both to settle the same amicably.
Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue
to operate.
Counter affidavit to be filed within a period of three weeks.”

# Ed. Note: “FIR No.499” instead of “FIR No.449” in terms of subsequent corrigendum.
1248 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

4. Thereafter, on 18th December 2024, this Court passed an order
directing the first appellant and second respondent to remain present
before this Court through video conference on 27th January 2025.
The order passed by this Court on 27th January 2025 reads thus:
“Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent,
without prejudice to the rights of the said respondent, stated
that the second respondent is willing to tender apology to
the petitioners if the petitioners are willing to put an end
to the entire controversy in both criminal proceedings.
Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
stated that petitioners are not willing, we are of the view
that it is in their interests whether matter can be put to an
end by way of amicable settlement. It will be appropriate if
the petitioners have rethinking on the issue of settlement.
The first petitioner is a member of the Bar. With a view to
give the petitioners one more opportunity to rethink, list the
petition on 17th February, 2025. If there is no possibility of
the settlement, we take up the petition for hearing.”
5. In terms of the said order, the second respondent filed an affidavit
of apology dated 27th February 2025. On 3rd March 2025, when this
Court suggested to the appellants, and in particular, the first appellant,
who was present before this Court through video conference that
both the FIRs can be quashed so that quietus can be given to the
dispute between two members of the Bar, the first appellant was bold
enough to threaten this Court that if the FIR filed by the appellants
against the second respondent is quashed, he would commit suicide.
The order dated 3rd March 2025 reads thus:
“Today in the morning when the Petition was called out,
the first petitioner, who is a member of the Bar, appeared
through video conference and stated that while quashing
the offence against him, if the Court quashes the FIR
registered by him against the second respondent, he will
commit suicide. We are shocked to record such conduct
on the part of a member of the Bar. Now, in the afternoon,
the first petitioner appears and apologizes. However,
the first petitioner must tender a written apology and an
undertaking not to repeat such threats/submissions. We
are not forcing the first petitioner to tender an apology
in writing and to give assurance as stated above. But
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1249

Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v.
State Through The Inspector of Police & Anr.

we make it clear that on his failure to do so, necessary
consequences in accordance with law will follow.
List the Petition on 7th March, 2025.”
6. Pursuant to the said order, the first appellant filed an affidavit of
apology-cum-undertaking dated 6th March 2025.

SUBMISSIONS
7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
is that the FIR registered at the instance of the second respondent,
which is the subject matter of this appeal, is a counterblast to the
FIR registered at the instance of the appellants against the second
respondent. He submitted that apart from the second respondent,
there were two other persons involved in the incident of assault on
the first appellant. They attacked the first appellant causing him to
suffer an injury. As a result, there was a bleeding from his nose. He
submitted that considering the serious allegations made in the FIR
registered against the second respondent and two other persons, the
same cannot be quashed in this appeal as the second respondent
has not applied for quashing. He submitted that the proceeding
initiated by the second respondent is nothing but an abuse of the
process of law, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed.
8. The learned counsel for the second respondent urged that both the
FIRs be quashed. He pointed out that the second respondent has
taken a fair stand and has tendered an apology to the appellants
on oath.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
9. Both the first appellant and the second respondent are practising in
the Courts at Kodaikanal and are members of the same Bar. The
first appellant is a young lawyer. The cases based on cross FIRs
are pending from the year 2017. A perusal of the FIR registered at
the instance of the first appellant shows that it was registered at
8.30 pm on 21st December 2017 for the offences punishable under
Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of IPC. The FIR registered at the
instance of the second respondent was registered at 9 pm on the
same day. Therefore, the FIR registered at the instance of the first
appellant is prior in point of time by 30 minutes. The offences alleged
1250 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

are the same in both the FIRs. There are allegations and counter-
allegations by both parties. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the
second respondent has filed an affidavit dated 27th February 2025.
The material portion of the affidavit (paragraphs 4 to 8) reads thus:
“4. That upon deep reflection and introspection, I deeply
regret the unfortunate incident that occurred between
myself and the complainant advocate, which led to the
registration of the aforementioned FIRs.
5. That I hereby tender my sincere and unconditional
apology to this Hon’ble Court, the Bar Council of
Tamil Nadu, the Kodaikanal Bar Association, and the
Petitioner advocate for my conduct.
6. That I acknowledge that as members of the legal
fraternity, we are expected to uphold the highest
standards of professional ethics and conduct, and
to resolve our differences through civilized dialogue
and legal means rather than through confrontation.
7. That I solemnly undertake to maintain cordial and
professional relations with all members of the Bar,
including the complainant advocate, and shall never
engage in any behaviour that brings disrepute to the
noble profession of law.
8. That this apology 1s being tendered voluntarily,
unconditionally, and without any reservations
whatsoever, with a genuine desire to amicably resolve
the matter and- to ensure that the dignity and decorum
of the legal profession is maintained.”
(emphasis added)

10. Thus, the second respondent has tendered a sincere and unconditional
apology not only to this Court, but also to the first appellant, the Bar
Council of Tamil Nadu, and the Kodaikanal Bar Association.
11. 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
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1251

Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v.
State Through The Inspector of Police & Anr.

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. However, the first appellant
has filed an affidavit dated 6th March 2025 and in paragraphs 3 to
5 the first appellant has stated thus:
“3. In the above-mentioned case I was called on 3.03.2025
and I appear virtually and said “I will commit suicide if
the lordships quashes the case against respondent”
that upon deep reflection and rethinking, I deeply
regret the choice of words used by me. I tender my
sincere and unconditional apology to this Hon’ble
Court for my conduct, I was emotional and with all
sincerity had no intention to threaten the judges of
suicide. I with all my heart beg to apologize me for
this conduct. The lordships may with all greatness
graciously accept my apology.
4. That I solemnly undertake to not to repeat this
behavior anywhere before any court.
5. That I humbly request this Hon’ble Court to kindly
accept my unconditional apology and to graciously pass
the suitable order.”
(emphasis added)

12. An attempt made all along by this 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. We felt that the pending
cases may adversely affect the professional prospects of both the
first appellant and the second respondent.
13. As this Court was willing to take a broad view and put an end to the
dispute, which has been pending for more than seven years, the
second respondent responded by tendering an unconditional apology
to the first appellant. This 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 this Court, the second respondent took a reasonable stand and
1252 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

tendered an unconditional apology. However, notwithstanding the best
efforts made by the first appellant’s own learned 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
this 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.
14. However, 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.
15. There are cases and cases which come before the courts where we
find that the litigants are not in a position to understand what is in their
best interest. Even if the litigants do not understand what is in their
best interest, it is the duty of the Court to deliver substantial justice.
16. It appears that the incident arose due to some history of animosity
between the second respondent and the first appellant. Even
assuming that the first appellant has sustained an injury to his
nose, the second respondent, for his alleged acts, has tendered
an unconditional apology on oath and undertaken to maintain a
cordial relationship with the appellant. The second respondent has
expressed that he has no objection to quashing the FIR registered
by him. Considering these peculiar facts, we are of the view that it
is in the personal and professional interests of both parties that the
proceedings based on the FIRs should be quashed. 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.
17. Therefore, in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, we pass the following order:
a. FIR No. 500 of 2017 registered at the Kodaikanal Police Station
at the instance of the second respondent and proceedings of
the case bearing STC No 607 of 2019 on the file of the learned
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal are hereby
quashed;
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1253

Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v.
State Through The Inspector of Police & Anr.

b. FIR No.499 of 2017, registered at Police Station Kodaikanal,
is hereby quashed only as against the second respondent.
Consequently, the proceedings of C.C.No.106 of 2022 pending
before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Kodaikanal is hereby
quashed only as against the second respondent;
c. The apology and undertakings of both the first appellant and
the second respondent which we have referred to above are
taken on record; and,
d. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose