In a startling development during a Supreme Court hearing, a young advocate, Ramesh Kumaran, threatened to commit suicide if the FIR filed by him was quashed, prompting the bench to express serious concern over the conduct. The Court, however, chose to exercise leniency and bring a close to the long-standing criminal dispute between two lawyers, aiming to uphold the dignity of the legal profession and deliver substantial justice.
Background
The case, Criminal Appeal No. 1318 of 2025, arose from an incident that occurred on 18 December 2017 in Kodaikanal, Tamil Nadu. Both the first appellant, Ramesh Kumaran, and the second respondent are practising lawyers in the local courts. The first appellant’s father was also involved as the second appellant.
Two FIRs were registered from the same incident:
- FIR No. 499/2017, lodged by Kumaran, alleged that the second respondent and two unidentified individuals assaulted him, causing a bleeding injury to his nose.
- FIR No. 500/2017, filed 30 minutes later by the second respondent, accused Kumaran and his father of verbal abuse and criminal intimidation.
When police closed the second FIR and the Magistrate took cognizance on a protest petition, Kumaran sought quashing of the proceedings before the Madras High Court, which refused relief in September 2023.
Supreme Court Proceedings
The matter reached the Supreme Court where a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan sought to mediate peace between the warring lawyers.
On 3 March 2025, while appearing via video conference, Ramesh Kumaran stunned the court by declaring:
“If the FIR filed by me against the second respondent is quashed, I will commit suicide.”
The court recorded this incident in its order, stating:
“We are shocked to record such conduct on the part of a member of the Bar.”
The bench called the behaviour “contemptuous and unbecoming of a lawyer”, noting that such threats amount to interference with the administration of justice. However, after Kumaran filed a written affidavit of apology-cum-undertaking on 6 March 2025, the Court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, choosing instead to act with restraint.
Court’s Observations
Throughout the proceedings, the bench emphasized the importance of resolution. The second respondent tendered an unconditional apology not only to the Court but also to the appellant and legal fraternity, stating in his affidavit:
“I acknowledge that as members of the legal fraternity, we are expected to uphold the highest standards… and resolve our differences through civilized dialogue.”
Despite repeated efforts by the Court and even the appellant’s own counsel, Kumaran remained initially unwilling to settle the matter. Still, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, noting:
“Even if the litigants do not understand what is in their best interest, it is the duty of the Court to deliver substantial justice.”
Final Judgment
In its judgment delivered on 27 March 2025, the Court ruled:
- FIR No. 500/2017 and related proceedings were quashed entirely.
- FIR No. 499/2017 was quashed only against the second respondent, allowing proceedings to continue against the other accused if any.
- Apologies and undertakings from both parties were taken on record.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Bench’s Closing Remarks: Upholding the Legal Profession
While refraining from punishing Kumaran for his threat, the Court stressed the importance of magnanimity and professional conduct:
“If magnanimity is to be shown by someone, the same should be done by the persons holding the highest constitutional office.”
The Court expressed hope that the “past animosity between the first appellant and the second respondent will come to a happy end”, and encouraged both lawyers to contribute positively to the legal system rather than be entangled in personal disputes.
