Summary
Two advocates practising at Kodaikanal had lodged cross-FIRs against each other over a 2017 scuffle, each alleging offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC. After the second respondent tendered an unconditional apology on oath and the first appellant, having first threatened to commit suicide if his own FIR were quashed, apologised and gave an undertaking, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to quash the second respondent's FIR entirely and the first appellant's FIR as against the second respondent, to give quietus to a dispute between members of the same Bar.
Issues
- Whether criminal proceedings arising from cross-FIRs between two members of the Bar, pending since 2017, should be quashed in the exercise of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution after one party tendered an unconditional apology.
- Whether a litigant's statement to the Court that he would commit suicide if the FIR lodged by him were quashed warranted action for criminal contempt.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaInvoked to quash both sets of proceedings: FIR No. 500 of 2017 and the case arising from it entirely, and FIR No. 499 of 2017 and the case arising from it only as against the second respondent, with the parties' apologies and undertakings taken on record. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1), Indian Penal Code, 1860The offences alleged in both cross-FIRs (obscene words in a public place, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation). The Court noted that the offences alleged were identical in both FIRs, which were registered thirty minutes apart on the same day, and did not examine the allegations on merits. (¶¶ 1, 2, 9)
Held
- Where cross-FIRs alleging the same offences arise from a single incident between two advocates practising in the same courts, and one of them tenders a sincere and unconditional apology on oath to the Court, the other party, the State Bar Council and the local Bar Association, with an undertaking to maintain cordial professional relations, it is in the personal and professional interests of both that the proceedings be quashed; the Court exercised its power under Article 142 to do so even though the first appellant did not consent and the second respondent had not himself applied for quashing. (¶¶ 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17)
- A threat by a litigant, and particularly by a member of the Bar, that he would commit suicide if the Court quashed the FIR lodged by him amounts to interference with the administration of justice, is contemptuous and unbecoming of an advocate; in the normal course such threats must be taken seriously and criminal contempt action initiated and carried to its logical end. (¶¶ 5, 11, 13)
- Magnanimity should be shown by those holding the highest constitutional office. As the first appellant filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology and undertaking not to repeat such conduct before any court, the Court, in the peculiar facts, decided not to initiate action against him. (¶¶ 6, 14)
- Even where litigants do not understand what is in their own best interest, it is the duty of the Court to deliver substantial justice. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal allowed under Article 142. FIR No. 500 of 2017 (Kodaikanal Police Station) and STC No. 607 of 2019 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, are quashed; FIR No. 499 of 2017 and C.C. No. 106 of 2022 before Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Kodaikanal, are quashed only as against the second respondent; the apologies and undertakings of the first appellant and the second respondent are taken on record.