The Madras High Court, presided over by Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, has held that while advocates can conduct democratic and peaceful protests to express solidarity, they cannot obstruct police officers from performing their lawful duty of producing accused persons before a court. Disposing of a petition filed by ten advocates seeking to quash an FIR registered against them for obstructing police officers, the High Court ruled that the FIR under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) would stand quashed subject to the condition that the petitioners file an affidavit expressing regret for their extreme behaviour within ten working days. The court also held that charges under Section 186 IPC were legally unsustainable without a formal court complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), and that Section 152 IPC was un-attracted.
Background Of The Case
The proceedings originated from an incident on November 2, 2023. The Sathankadu Police had apprehended two advocates, Dinesh and Neeraj, in connection with Crime No. 396 of 2023 and brought them to the Police Control Room Booth inside the court premises to produce them for remand before the Special Court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Ten advocates—Ajith Kumar S, Subburaj K, Balaji P, Giridharan R, Vignesh V, S.Kasirajan, Sudhakar V, Vijaya Kumar V, Esakipandy A, and Kamesh R—staged a protest despite warnings from court security personnel and prevented the police from producing the two detained lawyers.
After perusing video footage of the incident, the Security Committee of the High Court concluded that the acts amounted to obstruction of public servants and penal offences. It directed that complaints be forwarded to the Bar Council and to the Station House Officer, Esplanade Police Station. Subsequently, Hari B, Registrar (Administration) of the Madras High Court, lodged a complaint, leading to the registration of Crime No. 11 of 2025 at the Flower Bazaar Police Station under Sections 186, 152, and 225 of the IPC. The petitioners moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash the FIR.
Arguments Of The Parties
Advocate R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the lawyers were conducting a peaceful protest against the alleged false apprehension of their colleagues under the NDPS Act and were merely exercising their democratic rights in favour of fellow Bar members. Counsel relied on paragraph 5 of the High Court ruling in C.Raja Vs. State and Anr. (Crl.O.P.No.19420 of 2023), which observed:
“The demeanor of an Advocate will always be different from the demeanor of a layman. Considering the position that he holds and job that he performs, an Advocate in most of the situations reacts boisterously. This is a character which is developed by an Advocate by virtue of the nature of duty that he performs for his clients. The legal profession involves fighting for the rights of the clients and the Advocate tends to react more aggressively even outside the Courts. It may be true that the petitioner had expressed himself more strongly to defend the rights of his client and that by itself should not result in a criminal prosecution against an Advocate. The main intention on the part of the petitioner was not to prevent the Government officials from performing their function and on the other hand, the petitioner was only attempting to safeguard the rights of his client (A1).”
Counsel further cited Jeevanandham and Ors. Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police and Anr. to argue that Section 195 Cr.P.C. bars direct registration of an FIR under Section 186 IPC without a formal complaint before the concerned court. It was added that police subsequently released the two lawyers on station bail without filing a charge sheet against them.
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) M. Mohamed Riyaz, appearing for the State, submitted that the allegations involved using force and assaulting police officers on duty, meaning the case could not be categorized as a normal democratic protest.
Court’s Analysis
Analyzing the legal provisions, Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy held that under Section 195 Cr.P.C., cognisance of an offence under Section 186 IPC is barred in the absence of a complaint filed to the concerned court. Applying the rule in Jeevanandham, the court held that no FIR could have been registered under Section 186 IPC.
Regarding Section 152 IPC, the court observed that the offence applies only when a public servant on duty dispersing an unlawful assembly or suppressing a riot or affray is threatened, obstructed, or assaulted. The FIR contained no allegations or averments of threatening or assaulting policemen engaged in such duty.
On Section 225 IPC, the court explained that the provision is attracted when resistance or obstruction is offered to the lawful apprehension or detention of a person. The court noted that even if excess was committed against advocates, the lawful recourse was to appear before the court where they were produced, object to the remand, and seek legal remedies. While democratic and peaceful protests are permissible to express solidarity, the video evidence showed that the lawyers prevented the police from producing the accused. Consequently, prima facie material existed regarding Section 225 IPC.
Decision Of The Court
Despite finding prima facie material under Section 225 IPC, the High Court took into account specific factual circumstances: the police made no further attempts to produce the two arrested advocates for remand and instead enlarged them on station bail; no final report had been filed; and while the incident occurred in 2023, the FIR was registered in 2025, subjecting the petitioners to proceedings for three years.
The High Court held that the FIR under Section 225 IPC could also be quashed on the condition that the petitioners file an affidavit expressing regret for their extreme behaviour within ten working days.
The Criminal Original Petition was disposed of on the following terms:
- Upon the petitioners filing an affidavit expressing regret for the incident that happened on November 2, 2023, the FIR in Crime No. 11 of 2025 shall stand quashed.
- If any of the petitioners does not file the affidavit, the case against them can be proceeded with reference to the offence under Section 225 IPC.
- The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Case Title: Ajith Kumar S and Others Vs. State Rep By its Inspector of Police and Another
Case No.: Crl.O.P.No.29355 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.19964 of 2025
Bench: Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Date: August 5, 2026
