They Should Represent Litigants Instead Of Fighting Cases Against Each Other: Supreme Court Quashes FIRs, Ends 7-Year-Long Dispute Between Lawyers

The Appeal before the Apex Court arose between the first appellant and the second respondent, who are both members of the Bar and practice before the Courts in Kodaikanal.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan explained, “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.”

AOR Vairawan A.S represented the Appellants while AOR Sabarish Subramanian represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

There are 2 FIRs involved in the present matter. In the first FIR, registered at the instance of the first appellant, it was alleged that the second respondent and two unidentified persons were drinking alcohol in a car, and they assaulted the first appellant. Accordingly, an FIR was registered alleging the commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The matter at hand revolves around the second FIR, which related to the same incident and was also registered at the instance of the second respondent just half an hour after the first FIR. The allegation made by the second respondent was that while he was standing near the Kodaikanal Lake, the first appellant came there and abused him with filthy words and started verbally arguing with him. The second respondent alleged that he was threatened and was asked to leave the city or he would be killed. The FIR came to be registered under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the IPC.

A closure report came to be filed. Thereafter, cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate on the second respondent’s protest petition. The appellants filed a petition before the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings but by the impugned judgment, the same was dismissed. In one of the hearings, when the parties were informed that the FIRs could be quashed, the first appellant threatened that if the FIR filed by the appellants against the second respondent was quashed, he would commit suicide. Later, the appellant filed an affidavit of apology-cum-undertaking. It was in such circumstances that the matter came up for hearing before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the second respondent had 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. “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 noticed that while hearing SLP in Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v. State through Inspector of Police on March 3, 2025, the first appellant threatened the Court that if the FIR was quashed, he would commit suicide. However, looking at the fact that the first appellant showed some repentance by tendering an unconditional apology and by giving an undertaking not to repeat such misconduct, the Bench said, “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.”

It furthe held, . “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 tendered an unconditional apology.”

The Bench noted that the incident arose due to some history of animosity between the second respondent and the first appellant. However, assuming that the first appellant had sustained an injury to his nose, the second respondent, for his alleged acts, had tendered an unconditional apology on oath and undertaken to maintain a cordial relationship with the appellant. The second respondent had expressed that he had no objection to quashing the FIR registered by him.

Thus, the Apex Court concluded that it would be 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 Bench said while quashing the FIRs registered against the appellant and the second respondent.

Cause Title: Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v. State through the Inspector of Police & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 405)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Vairawan A.S, Advocate Jaswanthi

Respondents: AOR Sabarish Subramanian, AOR A Velan, Advocates Navpreet Kaur, Prince Singh, Nilay Rai

Click here to read/download Judgment