Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 405
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1318 OF 2025
Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. … Appellants
versus
State
through the Inspector of Police & Anr. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
This appeal arises out of a dispute between the first
1.
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
th
the appellants, on 18 December 2017, the second
Signature Not Verified
respondent and two other persons assaulted the
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.03.27
16:52:55 IST
Reason:
appellants. Therefore, FIR No.499 of 2017, which was the
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 1 of 14
first FIR, was registered at the instance of the first
appellant. It is alleged in the said FIR that at 4.45 pm on
th
18 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
st
21 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.
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
st
the same incident and was also registered on 21
December 2017, half an hour after FIR No.449 of 2017
was registered. The allegation made by the second
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 2 of 14
th
respondent is that on 18 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
st
Magistrate at Kodaikanal on 1 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
th
dated 29 September, 2023, the High Court has
dismissed the petition.
When the SLP against the impugned judgment came
3.
th
up for hearing on 9 July 2024, this Court issued notice
and stayed the criminal proceedings pending before the
st
Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal. On 21 October 2024,
this Court passed the following order:
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 3 of 14
“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.”
th
4. Thereafter, on 18 December 2024, this Court
passed an order directing the first appellant and second
respondent to remain present before this Court through
th
video conference on 27 January 2025. The order passed
th
by this Court on 27 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
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 4 of 14
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
th
filed an affidavit of apology dated 27 February 2025. On
rd
3 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
rd
order dated 3 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
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 5 of 14
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.
List the Petition on 7th March, 2025.”
Pursuant to the said order, the first appellant filed
6.
th
an affidavit of apology-cum-undertaking dated 6 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
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 6 of 14
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
st
at 8.30 pm on 21 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 are the same in both the FIRs. There are
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 7 of 14
allegations and counter-allegations by both parties.
Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the second
th
respondent has filed an affidavit dated 27 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.
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 8 of 14
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.
We thought that the first appellant would
11.
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. However, the first
th
appellant has filed an affidavit dated 6 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
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 9 of 14
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.
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 10 of 14
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 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
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 11 of 14
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.
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 12 of 14
17. Therefore, in the exercise of our jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we pass the
following order:
FIR No. 500 of 2017 registered at the
a.
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;
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,
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 13 of 14
d. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.
………………………….J.
(Abhay S Oka)
………………………….J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
March 27, 2025.
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 14 of 14
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1318 OF 2025
Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. … Appellants
versus
State
through the Inspector of Police & Anr. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
This appeal arises out of a dispute between the first
1.
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
th
the appellants, on 18 December 2017, the second
Signature Not Verified
respondent and two other persons assaulted the
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.03.27
16:52:55 IST
Reason:
appellants. Therefore, FIR No.499 of 2017, which was the
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 1 of 14
first FIR, was registered at the instance of the first
appellant. It is alleged in the said FIR that at 4.45 pm on
th
18 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
st
21 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.
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
st
the same incident and was also registered on 21
December 2017, half an hour after FIR No.449 of 2017
was registered. The allegation made by the second
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 2 of 14
th
respondent is that on 18 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
st
Magistrate at Kodaikanal on 1 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
th
dated 29 September, 2023, the High Court has
dismissed the petition.
When the SLP against the impugned judgment came
3.
th
up for hearing on 9 July 2024, this Court issued notice
and stayed the criminal proceedings pending before the
st
Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal. On 21 October 2024,
this Court passed the following order:
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 3 of 14
“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.”
th
4. Thereafter, on 18 December 2024, this Court
passed an order directing the first appellant and second
respondent to remain present before this Court through
th
video conference on 27 January 2025. The order passed
th
by this Court on 27 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
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 4 of 14
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
th
filed an affidavit of apology dated 27 February 2025. On
rd
3 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
rd
order dated 3 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
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 5 of 14
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.
List the Petition on 7th March, 2025.”
Pursuant to the said order, the first appellant filed
6.
th
an affidavit of apology-cum-undertaking dated 6 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
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 6 of 14
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
st
at 8.30 pm on 21 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 are the same in both the FIRs. There are
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 7 of 14
allegations and counter-allegations by both parties.
Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the second
th
respondent has filed an affidavit dated 27 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.
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 8 of 14
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.
We thought that the first appellant would
11.
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. However, the first
th
appellant has filed an affidavit dated 6 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
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 9 of 14
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.
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 10 of 14
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 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
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 11 of 14
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.
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 12 of 14
17. Therefore, in the exercise of our jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we pass the
following order:
FIR No. 500 of 2017 registered at the
a.
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;
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,
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 13 of 14
d. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.
………………………….J.
(Abhay S Oka)
………………………….J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
March 27, 2025.
Criminal Appeal No.1318 of 2025 Page 14 of 14