A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment concerns cross-registered First Information Reports arising from a single incident between two practising advocates in Kodaikanal. The dispute produced FIR No.499 of 2017 (registered by the first appellant) and FIR No.500 of 2017 (registered by the second respondent), both alleging offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Supreme Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, explored and facilitated an amicable resolution because the parties are members of the same local Bar, the incident had a history of past animosity, and both litigational and professional interests of the parties were at stake.

The second respondent filed a voluntary, unconditional affidavit of apology; the first appellant initially reacted emotionally (threatening self-harm if the other FIR were quashed) but subsequently filed an affidavit of apology and an undertaking.

Taking these facts into account and noting that the complaints were mirror-image in offences and closely spaced in time, the Court quashed FIR No.500 of 2017 and quashed FIR No.499 of 2017 only against the second respondent, while recording the apologies and undertakings.

The order emphasises restorative resolution between legal professionals, the Court’s duty to deliver substantial justice, and the limited use of penal process when reconciliation is practicable.

Keywords: Quashing of FIR; Article 142; First Information Report; Unconditional apology; Sections 294(b), 323 & 506(1) IPC.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arises from parallel FIRs registered on the same night half an hour apart following an altercation near Kodaikanal Lake on 18 December 2017. The parties are practising advocates in the same small local Bar. The first FIR (No.499 of 2017) alleged that the second respondent and two others assaulted the first appellant causing bleeding from the nose; the second FIR (No.500 of 2017) alleged that the first appellant and his father abused and threatened the second respondent.

Both FIRs accused one another of obscene language, causing hurt and criminal intimidation under the same penal sections. Proceedings lingered for years; one matter had a charge-sheet and the other proceeded by way of cognizance on a protest petition. The High Court declined quashing of the second FIR, prompting this appeal.

On special leave the Supreme Court stayed the trial and proactively invited the parties to consider settlement because the litigants were colleagues whose continued professional functioning could be impaired by protracted criminal litigation.

During interlocutory hearings the second respondent filed an unconditional affidavit of apology and undertook to maintain cordial professional relations; the first appellant initially reacted in an emotionally charged manner but later filed an apology-cum-undertaking.

The Court balanced the interests of justice, the public interest in preserving professional decorum, and the private interests of the litigants, invoking Article 142 to quash proceedings in the limited manner recorded in the order.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Factual matrix: On 18 December 2017, near Kodaikanal Lake, an incident occurred involving the first appellant and the second respondent. The first appellant alleged that the second respondent, in company of two unidentified persons, assaulted him causing his nose to bleed; FIR No.499 of 2017 was registered on 21 December 2017 at 8:30 pm alleging Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC. Half an hour later, at 9:00 pm, the second respondent filed FIR No.500 of 2017 claiming that the first appellant and his father abused and threatened him and that he was told to leave the city; identical offences were alleged.

Procedural posture: The police filed a closure report in respect of one FIR, the second respondent filed a protest petition and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 1 October 2019. The appellants sought quashing in the High Court which dismissed the petition on 29 September 2023. The matter reached this Court by SLP; interim stay was granted on 9 July 2024.

Interlocutory developments: The Supreme Court suggested an amicable settlement on account of the professional relationship between the parties. The second respondent filed an affidavit of apology dated 27 February 2025 tendering a voluntary, unconditional apology to the Court, the Bar Council and the Kodaikanal Bar Association, and undertaking to maintain cordial relations. The first appellant initially threatened self-harm in open Court if the counter FIR were quashed; within days he filed an affidavit dated 6 March 2025 tendering an unconditional apology and undertaking not to repeat the conduct. The apology affidavits form the critical factual basis for the Court’s exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Article 142.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether a First Information Report can be quashed where cross-FIRs arise from the same incident and allege identical offences?

2. Whether the Court can invoke Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings in the public interest when parties are members of the same profession and have tendered unconditional apologies and undertakings?

3. What weight should be given to voluntary apologies and undertakings tendered by accused persons in deciding whether the ends of justice require continuation of prosecution?

4. Whether emotional or contemptuous conduct by an advocate (threats to the Court) precludes the Court from considering magnanimity in quashing proceedings?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the second FIR (No.500 of 2017) is a counterblast engineered to neutralize the earlier complaint and is an abuse of process. They contended that the first appellant sustained physical injury (nose bleeding) from an assault involving the second respondent and two others; therefore the assault allegations are grave and not susceptible to quashing at the instance of the second respondent alone.

The petitioners argued that the continuance of both prosecutions serves no public interest and unduly hampers their professional prospects and reputation. They urged that quashing should not be ordered in favour of the accused who lacks prosecutorial innocence and that the Court must not substitute settlement for trial where injuries are alleged.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that both FIRs arise from the same incident, contain reciprocal allegations under identical sections, and have been pending for many years causing prejudice to professional life. The second respondent took the initiative to tender an unconditional apology on oath and offered undertakings to maintain decorum and professional relations.

Learned counsel urged that reconciliation would better serve justice here, that the criminal process is being misused for personal animosity, and that the Court should exercise Article 142 to quash proceedings to bring finality and protect the dignity of the Bar.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 142, Constitution of India — equitable jurisdiction to do “complete justice” in appropriate cases.

2. Section 294(b), IPC — obscene acts and songs (as charged).

3. Section 323, IPC — voluntarily causing hurt.

4. Section 506(1), IPC — criminal intimidation by threat of death or injury.

5. Principles governing quashing of FIRs where offences are compoundable, or where prosecution is an abuse of process; allied to courts’ duty to protect professional decorum and public interest.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Court took a pragmatic and restorative view. It recorded that:

(i) the two FIRs were filed within thirty minutes of each other and mirror the same offences;

(ii) both parties are members of the same small Bar and continued litigation would harm their professional futures;

(iii) the second respondent had filed a comprehensive, voluntary, unconditional affidavit of apology and an undertaking to maintain professional relations; and

(iv) the first appellant, despite an initial emotional outburst, filed an affidavit of apology and an undertaking.

The Court emphasised that while threats to the Court are grave and potentially contemptuous, the first appellant’s subsequent repentance and undertaking mitigated the need for punitive proceedings.

Applying Article 142, the Court exercised its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction to bring finality. It quashed FIR No.500 of 2017 in toto and quashed FIR No.499 of 2017 only as against the second respondent (leaving proceedings against other accused, if any, intact). The apology affidavits and undertakings were taken on record as material to the exercise of discretion.

The Court explained that when mutual animosity spawns cross-FIRs of identical character, and when voluntary apologies and undertakings are tendered, the continuance of prosecution may produce further animosity and impair the parties’ ability to discharge professional obligations outcomes inconsistent with the public interest.

The Court also cautioned that the remedy of quashing is exceptional and depends on facts; it reserved the position that ordinarily contempt or criminal action would follow for threats to the judiciary, but in the peculiar facts magnanimity would be exercised. The appeal was allowed on those terms.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal principle is that where cross-FIRs arising from the same incident allege identical offences and where parties particularly professionals sharing a small communal sphere tender voluntary, unconditional apologies and undertakings, the Supreme Court may, in exercise of Article 142, quash criminal proceedings to secure complete and substantial justice.

The Court weighed the public interest against private settlements and found that further prosecution would not serve justice but perpetuate animosity, thereby justifying quashing limited to the parties who have apologized.

The presence of a sincere, recorded apology and an express undertaking is material and can outweigh the need for trial when the offences are such that peaceful settlement would not subvert public justice.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed obiter that threats to the Court including the first appellant’s claim that he would commit suicide if the counter FIR were quashed constitute reprehensible conduct by a member of the Bar and may attract contempt proceedings.

The Court emphasised the duty of legal professionals to preserve decorum and warned that, ordinarily, such conduct would invite adverse legal consequences. Nonetheless, obiter opinions indicated that judicial magnanimity may still be exercised in exceptional circumstances where contrition is shown and the public interest is not compromised.

c. GUIDELINES 

1. When cross-FIRs mirror one another and arise from the same episode, courts should examine whether the continuation of prosecutions will promote reconciliation or aggravate animosity.

2. Voluntary, unconditional apologies filed on oath and clear undertakings to maintain professional conduct are relevant materials in deciding whether to quash proceedings.

3. Exercise of Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings must be exceptional, fact-sensitive and only after balancing individual rehabilitation against the public interest in prosecution.

4. Misuse of criminal process for settling personal scores among professionals is to be discouraged; courts may proactively suggest restorative resolution where appropriate.

5. Threats to the judiciary by advocates are a serious matter; even where leniency is exercised, courts may record such conduct and reserve the right to initiate proceedings if warranted.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment illustrates judicial pragmatism in resolving protracted, reciprocal criminal litigation between members of the legal fraternity. The Court’s order demonstrates a careful balancing: it recognises the sanctity of criminal adjudication but also the countervailing interests of professional rehabilitation, community harmony and avoidance of needless litigation.

The reliance on voluntary, unconditional apologies and recorded undertakings as decisive material underscores the importance of sincere contrition and restorative steps in appropriate cases. At the same time, the Court’s clear note that threats to judicial authority are contemptuous preserves the deterrent posture necessary for institutional respect.

Practitioners should note that quashing on conciliatory grounds is available only exceptionally, fact-specific, and is premised on genuine reparation coupled with demonstrable public interest; the judgment therefore maps a narrow but ethically significant route towards de-escalation of professional disputes without eroding rule-of-law values.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v. State Through The Inspector of Police & Anr., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1245 : 2025 INSC 405.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Constitution of India, Article 142.
ii. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 294(b), 323, 506(1).