LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 27 March 2025

Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, may the Supreme Court quash an FIR which the party who lodged it has not applied to quash?

Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v. State through the Inspector of Police & Anr.
2025 INSC 405 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1318 OF 2025
Coram: Abhay S. Oka; Ujjal Bhuyan
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Art.142 Constitution of India📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Yes. Where both FIRs arise out of the same incident between members of the same Bar, and one party has tendered an unconditional apology on oath, undertaken to maintain a cordial relationship and expressed no objection to quashing the FIR he registered, the Court may quash the proceedings in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142. Here the FIR lodged by the second respondent was quashed altogether, and the FIR lodged by the appellants was quashed only as against the second respondent.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Art. 142 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 294(b), 323, 506(1) — Cross FIRs — Quashing — Criminal contempt — Unconditional apology — Members of the Bar — Criminal contempt — Threat held out to the Court — Member of the Bar — Held: A threat to commit suicide held out to the Court if it quashes an FIR amounts to interference with the administration of justice; it is contemptuous and unbecoming of a member of the Bar. (¶11, 13) Criminal contempt — Unconditional apology and undertaking — Magnanimity — Held further: Such threats must in the normal course be taken very seriously and contempt action carried to its logical end; but where repentance is shown by an unconditional apology and an undertaking not to repeat, magnanimity may be shown instead. (¶13, 14) Constitution of India — Art. 142 — Cross FIRs — Quashing on apology — Held further: Where cross FIRs between members of the same Bar rest on one incident and the party who lodged one of them tenders an unconditional apology on oath and has no objection to quashing, both proceedings may be quashed under Article 142. (¶16, 17) Duty of the Court — Substantial justice — Litigant against his own interest — Held further: Even where litigants are not in a position to understand what is in their best interest, it is the duty of the Court to deliver substantial justice; appeal allowed and the FIRs quashed to the extent indicated. (¶15, 17)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 16It appears that the incident arose due to some history of animosity between the second respondent and the first appellant. Even assuming that the first appellant has sustained an injury to his nose, the second respondent, for his alleged acts, has tendered an unconditional apology on oath and undertaken to maintain a cordial relationship with the appellant. The second respondent has expressed that he has no objection to quashing the FIR registered by him. 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. 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.
Paragraph 17Therefore, in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we pass the following order: a. FIR No. 500 of 2017 registered at the Kodaikanal Police Station at the instance of the second respondent and proceedings of the case bearing STC No 607 of 2019 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal are hereby quashed; b. FIR No.499 of 2017, registered at Police Station Kodaikanal, is hereby quashed only as against the second respondent. Consequently, the proceedings of C.C.No.106 of 2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Kodaikanal is hereby quashed only as against the second respondent; c. The apology and undertakings of both the first appellant and the second respondent which we have referred to above are taken on record; and, d. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. ………………………….J. (Abhay S Oka) ………………………….J. (Ujjal Bhuyan) New Delhi; March 27, 2025.
Acts & Sections
Art.142 Constitution of Indias.294(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860s.323 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.506(1) Indian Penal Code, 1860

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v. State through the Inspector of Police & Anr. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does a litigant's threat to commit suicide if the Court passes a particular order amount to contempt?When may a court decline to initiate criminal contempt despite a threat having been held out to it?What is a court's duty where a litigant does not appreciate what is in his own best interest?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections