“If the Court Quashes the FIR Against Him, I Will Commit Suicide” - This Conduct Amounts to Interference with the Administration of Justice:  Supreme Court on Advocate’s Threat to Commit Suicide During Quashing Proceedings

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 – Supreme Court of India delivered a critical ruling in Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v. State through the Inspector of Police & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1318 of 2025), where the Court addressed cross-FIRs lodged between two practicing lawyers from Kodaikanal. The Court quashed both FIRs invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, aiming to restore professional harmony, but not without strongly condemning the conduct of the first appellant, who threatened to commit suicide if his complaint was quashed.  

Describing such behaviour as “interference with the administration of justice,” the Court warned of contempt proceedings but ultimately accepted the appellant’s apology in light of the peculiar facts.

The dispute arose from an incident dated 18th December 2017, involving Ramesh Kumaran, a young advocate (first appellant), and the second respondent, also a member of the Kodaikanal Bar. An altercation near Kodaikanal Lake allegedly escalated into a physical assault.

Ramesh Kumaran filed FIR No. 499 of 2017, alleging that the second respondent and two unknown persons assaulted him, punched him in the nose causing bleeding, and abused him, triggering offences under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(1) IPC. The genesis of hostility was traced to a past verbal altercation in the Kodaikanal Court three years earlier.

Thirty minutes later, the second respondent filed FIR No. 500 of 2017, claiming that Ramesh Kumaran and his father (second appellant) abused and threatened him, demanding he leave the city or face death.  

While the police filed a closure report in the latter FIR, the second respondent’s protest petition led the Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance. Ramesh Kumaran approached the Madras High Court for quashing, but his petition was dismissed on September 29, 2023. The present appeal before the Supreme Court followed.

The Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether FIR No. 500, being a retaliatory counterblast, should be quashed in the interest of justice and legal decorum, particularly since both complainants were members of the legal fraternity.

The Court’s initial approach was one of reconciliation. On October 21, 2024, the bench observed: “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.”

Subsequently, the second respondent submitted a detailed affidavit of apology, expressing sincere regret for the incident and resolving to uphold professional ethics. He stated:  “That upon deep reflection and introspection, I deeply regret the unfortunate incident… I hereby tender my sincere and unconditional apology… I solemnly undertake to maintain cordial and professional relations with all members of the Bar.”

In a shocking development, during the hearing on March 3, 2025, Ramesh Kumaran threatened to commit suicide if the Court quashed the FIR filed by him. The Court recorded the incident with dismay:

 “We are shocked to record such conduct on the part of a member of the Bar.”

The Court called this an instance of "interference with the administration of justice… contemptuous and unbecoming of a member of the Bar." Though initially inclined to initiate contempt proceedings, the Court held back after receiving an affidavit of apology-cumundertaking from the appellant:  “I deeply regret the choice of words used by me… I was emotional and had no intention to threaten the Judges… I tender my sincere and unconditional apology to this Hon’ble Court.”

Emphasizing that "courts must deliver substantial justice even when litigants fail to see what’s in their best interest," the Supreme Court noted that the cases had dragged on since 2017 and continued hostilities would be detrimental to the careers and mental peace of both advocates.  

The bench observed: “We thought that the first appellant would reciprocate by showing grace… However, he did not do so and went to the extent of giving a threat to this Court.”

Nonetheless, relying on its powers under Article 142, the Court held: “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.”

FIR No. 500 of 2017 and the corresponding criminal case were quashed in entirety.

FIR No. 499 of 2017 was quashed only against the second respondent.

The apologies and undertakings from both sides were formally taken on record.

In a judgment blending stern judicial censure with compassionate restraint, the Supreme Court sought to protect not only the integrity of legal proceedings but also the future of young professionals caught in a spiral of ego and hostility.  

The bench fittingly concluded: “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.”

Date of Decision: March 27, 2025