We Are Shocked To Record Such Conduct By Member Of Bar: Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Apologise After He Threatened Suicide
Expressing strong disapproval of his remarks, the Court issued the directive, noting that the Petitioner was himself a member of the Bar.
The Supreme Court, taking serious note of the conduct of a Petitioner in an SLP, who is a lawyer, and asked him to submit a written apology after he said during the hearing that he would commit suicide if the Court quashed both the FIR he had filed against Respondent No.2 in the case.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed shock and said, “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 we make it clear that on his failure to do so, necessary consequences in accordance with law will follow.”
AOR Vairawan A.S. represented the Petitioners, while the Respondents were represented by AOR Sabarish Subramanian.
Case Background
The Petitioners had filed a petition seeking the quashing of proceedings initiated against them by Respondent No. 2, the Bar President of Advocates in Kodaikanal. These proceedings were pending before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate. Respondent No. 2, had filed a private complaint against the Petitioners, leading the Magistrate to take cognizance of offences under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (IPC). Petitioner No.2 is the father of Petitioner No.1.
Petitioner No. 1 alleged that while he was walking, Respondent No. 2 abused and attacked him. Following the alleged attack, Petitioner No. 1 lodged a complaint, and an FIR was registered against Respondent No. 2 . This case was investigated, and a charge sheet was filed. The Petitioner further alleged that Respondent No. 2 had evaded summons for over a year.
Meanwhile, Respondent No. 2 filed a counter-complaint against the Petitioners, leading to an FIR being registered. However, the police later closed the case, stating it to be a "mistake of fact." Respondent No. 2 then filed a protest petition under Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which was accepted by the Magistrate, who took cognizance of it under Section 200 of CrPC. The Magistrate rejected the police’s final report, treated the protest petition as a private complaint, recorded sworn statements, and took cognizance of the case.
The Petitioners contended that Respondent No. 2's complaint was a counterblast to the complaint filed against him and lacked evidence. The Respondents, however, argued that the Magistrate had acted within the law by taking cognizance based on the protest petition.
High Court’s Order
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) dismissed the petition and held, “It is well settled law that on the receipt of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options. Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action. Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., on the basis of the police report and issue process; and thirdly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Further even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report. In the case on hand also, the final report filed by the police was not accepted by the learned Magistrate and then the protest petition was filed and the same was treated as private complaint and sworn statements were recorded and then taken cognizance. Hence, the aforesaid case law is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”.
Cause Title: Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v. State through Inspector of Police, (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9142/2024)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Jaswanthi A , Vairawan A.S. (AOR)
Respondents: Advocates Sabarish Subramanian (AOR), Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Jahnavi Taneja, Danish Saifi, A Velan (AOR), Navpreet Kaur, Prince Singh, Nilay Rai
Click here to read/download Order
