Supreme Court Quashes Cross FIRs Between Two Kodaikanal Lawyers, Takes Apologies on Record

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal arising from cross‑FIRs between two members of the Bar practising at Kodaikanal and considered a petition challenging the continuation of criminal proceedings stemming from an incident dated 18 December 2017.

The Court allowed the appeal in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and quashed FIR No.500 of 2017 and the related proceedings, and quashed FIR No.499 of 2017 only as against the second respondent. The bench recorded and relied upon unconditional apologies and undertakings tendered by both sides and observed the professional consequences of prolonged litigation between members of the legal fraternity. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court also recorded that the first appellant’s conduct in making a threat to the Court “amounts to interference with the administration of justice. It is contemptuous and unbecoming of a member of the Bar.”

Background

The dispute arose after an altercation near Kodaikanal Lake on 18 December 2017. FIR No.499 of 2017 was lodged by the first appellant alleging that the second respondent and two others assaulted him, causing a bleeding nose; FIR No.500 of 2017 was lodged by the second respondent alleging that the first appellant and his father abused and threatened him. Both FIRs charged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC and were registered on 21 December 2017, with FIR No.499 recorded half an hour earlier than FIR No.500. A police closure report on one of the FIRs was followed by a protest petition and cognizance by a Judicial Magistrate on 1 October 2019. The appellants’ petition to quash the proceedings was dismissed by the High Court on 29 September 2023.

The appellants moved the Supreme Court; notice was issued on 9 July 2024 and criminal proceedings were stayed. The Court encouraged an amicable settlement between the two lawyers and listed the matter to enable reconciliation. On 27 February 2025 the second respondent filed an affidavit tendering a “sincere and unconditional apology” and undertaking to maintain professional relations. On 3 March 2025 the first appellant, appearing by video conference, had stated that he would commit suicide if the Court quashed the FIR filed by him, a statement the Court described as shocking and potentially contemptuous; the first appellant thereafter filed an affidavit of apology and an undertaking on 6 March 2025, stating that he regretted his words and would not repeat such behaviour.

The Supreme Court noted the years‑long pendency of cross‑cases and the adverse impact on the parties’ professional prospects. Taking the apologies and assurances on record and invoking Article 142, the Court quashed FIR No.500 of 2017 and quashed FIR No.499 of 2017 only as against the second respondent, recorded the apologies and allowed the appeal on those terms. The Court observed that, although the first appellant’s threat could have attracted contempt proceedings, his subsequent unconditional apology and undertaking weighed against initiating such action in the peculiar facts of the case.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 (2025 INSC 405) Case Title: Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. versus State through the Inspector of Police & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment