Supreme Court Quashes Cross-FIRs Between Lawyers in Kodaikanal Dispute
In a significant judgment delivered on 27th March 2025, the Supreme Court of India resolved a long-standing dispute between two lawyers from Kodaikanal by quashing cross-FIRs filed against each other. The case, Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. vs. State through the Inspector of Police & Anr., involved allegations of assault, verbal abuse, and criminal intimidation between the two advocates. The Court emphasized the importance of professional ethics and amicable resolution among members of the legal fraternity. Here’s a detailed analysis of the case and the Court’s decision.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose between the first appellant, Ramesh Kumaran, and the second respondent, another advocate practising in Kodaikanal. The incident dates back to 18th December 2017, when an altercation occurred near Kodaikanal Lake. Two FIRs were registered as a result:
- FIR No. 499 of 2017: Filed by the first appellant alleging that the second respondent and two others assaulted him, causing a nose injury. The FIR was registered under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(1) of the IPC.
- FIR No. 500 of 2017: Filed by the second respondent half an hour later, accusing the appellants of verbal abuse and threats under the same IPC sections.
The appellants sought quashing of the second FIR, but the High Court dismissed their petition, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Submissions
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The second FIR was a counterblast to the first FIR and amounted to an abuse of the legal process.
- The first appellant suffered a physical injury (bleeding nose) due to the assault by the second respondent and two others.
- The second FIR deserved to be quashed as it was filed with malafide intentions.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The second respondent expressed willingness to settle the matter and tendered an unconditional apology to the appellants.
- He urged the Court to quash both FIRs to end the prolonged dispute.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, made the following key observations:
- Attempted Settlement: The Court repeatedly encouraged both parties to settle the dispute amicably, given their shared profession and the prolonged litigation.
- Apology by the Second Respondent: The second respondent filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology, acknowledging his misconduct and expressing regret. The Court appreciated this gesture.
- Conduct of the First Appellant: The first appellant, however, initially refused to settle and even threatened to commit suicide if the FIR against the second respondent was quashed. The Court strongly condemned this behavior but later accepted his written apology and undertaking.
- Quashing of FIRs: The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash both FIRs, emphasizing the need to end the animosity between the two lawyers.
Key Excerpts from the Judgment
The Court highlighted the importance of professional conduct among lawyers:
“We are shocked to record such conduct on the part of a member of the Bar… 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.”
The Court also noted:
“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.”
Final Order
The Supreme Court passed the following orders:
- FIR No. 500 of 2017 (filed by the second respondent) and related proceedings were quashed.
- FIR No. 499 of 2017 (filed by the first appellant) was quashed only against the second respondent.
- The apologies and undertakings of both parties were taken on record.
- The appeal was allowed, bringing an end to the dispute.
Conclusion
The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining professional decorum and resolving disputes amicably, especially among members of the legal fraternity. By quashing the cross-FIRs, the Supreme Court has not only delivered justice but also set a precedent for resolving such disputes in the larger interest of the legal profession.
Petitioner Name: Ramesh Kumaran & Anr..Respondent Name: State through the Inspector of Police & Anr..Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.Place Of Incident: Kodaikanal.Judgment Date: 26-03-2025.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: ramesh-kumaran-&-anr-vs-state-through-the-in-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-26-03-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Ujjal Bhuyan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
