Supreme Court of India· 27 March 2025

What is a court's duty where a litigant does not appreciate what is in his own best interest?

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

There are cases where litigants are not in a position to understand what is in their best interest, and even then it is the duty of the Court to deliver substantial justice. On that footing the Court ended a dispute pending more than seven years between two advocates practising before the same Courts, taking the view that if both cases went to trial it would only lead to more animosity and would adversely affect the professional prospects of both.

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 12An attempt made all along by this Court was to bring about a settlement between the first appellant and the second respondent who are members of the Bar practising before the same Courts. The reason was that this Court felt that both of them, instead of fighting cases against each other, should contribute to the legal system by representing litigants before the Court. We felt that the pending cases may adversely affect the professional prospects of both the first appellant and the second respondent.

Paragraph 13As this Court was willing to take a broad view and put an end to the dispute, which has been pending for more than seven years, the second respondent responded by tendering an unconditional apology to the first appellant. This Court was of the view that if ultimately both the cases go for trial, it will lead to more animosity between the first appellant and the second respondent. Pursuant to the appeal made by this Court, the second respondent took a reasonable stand and tendered an unconditional apology. However, notwithstanding the best efforts made by the first appellant's own learned counsel, the first appellant did not understand the importance of settling the dispute rather than aggravating it. He went to the extent of giving a threat to this Court. In normal course, such threats must be taken very seriously by the Courts. Action for criminal contempt against the person giving such a threat must be initiated, which should be taken to its logical end, especially when the first appellant is a member of the Bar.

Paragraph 15There are cases and cases which come before the courts where we find that the litigants are not in a position to understand what is in their best interest. Even if the litigants do not understand what is in their best interest, it is the duty of the Court to deliver substantial justice.

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?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?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections