Ramesh Kumaran v. State Through the Inspector of Police
Background
Two lawyers practising in Kodaikanal got into a physical and verbal altercation in December 2017, resulting in two cross FIRs registered half an hour apart, each alleging assault, abuse and threats by the other side. The present appeal concerned quashing of the FIR filed against the appellants (a young lawyer and his father) by the other lawyer, after the Supreme Court repeatedly nudged both sides toward an amicable settlement over several hearings. During one hearing, the appellant lawyer shockingly told the Court he would commit suicide if the FIR he had filed was quashed, prompting the Court to demand a written apology and undertaking, which he later furnished; the other side had already tendered an unconditional apology.
Decision Breakdown
The Court noted with concern that threatening a court amounts to interference with the administration of justice and is contemptuous conduct unbecoming of a Bar member, but chose not to initiate contempt proceedings given the appellant's subsequent unconditional apology and undertaking not to repeat such conduct. Weighing that both FIRs arose from the same incident, were nearly simultaneous, and that continuing the prosecutions would only deepen animosity and harm both lawyers' careers, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash both FIRs: the second respondent's FIR entirely, and the appellants' own FIR only as against the second respondent. The apologies and undertakings of both parties were taken on record as part of the order.
Lesson Learnt
Courts can use their extraordinary constitutional powers to end long-running cross-criminal litigation between parties when continuing it serves no one's real interest, but conduct such as threatening a court carries serious consequences and is tolerated, if at all, only where genuine remorse and an unconditional apology are shown.