Preventing Production Of Arrested Advocates Before Court Prima Facie Attracts Section 225 IPC: Madras High Court

The Court was hearing a criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of Crime No.11 of 2025 registered by the Flower Bazaar Police, High Court, Chennai, for offences under Sections 186, 152 and 225 of the IPC.

A Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed: “As far as the offence under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the offence is attracted when any person offers any resistance or obstruction to the lawful apprehension of any other person for an offence, or rescues or attempts to rescue any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained for an offence. In this regard, it can be seen that when the Police wanted to produce the two Advocates, namely, Dinesh and Neeraj, before the Court of law, even if the excess was committed against the Advocates, the lawful way is to appear before the Court before which they are produced, voice their objection, appeal to the learned Presiding Officer not to accept the remand, and seek lawful remedies.”

The Bench further stated: “Further, a protest in a democratic and peaceful manner can also be done to express solidarity and unity. However, in this case, beyond protest, after perusing the videos, the Committee has observed that Advocates were prevented from being produced before the Court. In view thereof, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material to proceed at least with reference to the offence under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code.”

Advocate R.C. Paul Kanagaraj appeared for the petitioners. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appeared for the State.

Background

The case arose from a protest by advocates inside the Madras High Court premises. The High Court Security Committee, after perusing video footage relating to the protest, concluded that the conduct amounted to obstruction of public servants from performing their duty and attracted penal offences.

Acting on the Committee’s direction, the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Madras, lodged a complaint. The FIR was then registered against the petitioners under Sections 186, 152 and 225 of the IPC.

The material before the Court showed that, in connection with Crime No.396 of 2023 registered by Sathankadu Police Station, two advocates, Dinesh and Neeraj, had been apprehended and brought for production before the Special Court under the NDPS Act. They were kept in the Police Control Room Booth, and the petitioners, also advocates, protested despite warnings from personnel guarding the court premises.

The petitioners contended that it was only a peaceful protest, as the two advocates had allegedly been falsely picked up under the NDPS Act and were sought to be produced before Court by the Sathankadu Police. They argued that they had only exercised their democratic right in favour of fellow members of the Bar.

They further submitted that the FIR could not have been registered straightaway for the offence under Section 186 of the IPC without a complaint before the appropriate Court. It was also argued that the police later took back the arrested advocates, released them on station bail, and no charge sheet had been filed against them till date.

The State opposed the plea, contending that the allegations included use of force and assault against police officers performing their duty, and that the case could not be treated as an ordinary democratic protest.

Court’s Observations

The Court first considered the offence under Section 186 of the IPC, which relates to obstruction of a public servant in discharge of public functions. It noted that Section 195 of the CrPC bars cognisance of such an offence except on a complaint before the concerned Court.

Referring to Jeevanandham and Ors. v. State rep. by The Inspector of Police and Anr. (2018), the Court held that no FIR could have been registered in respect of Section 186 of the IPC.

The Court observed: “Firstly, as far as the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. bars cognisance in the absence of a complaint to the concerned Court and therefore, in view of the law laid down in Jeevanandham’s case (cited supra), no F.I.R. could have been registered in respect of the said offence.”

The Court then examined Section 152 of the IPC. It said that the provision would be attracted only where a public servant on duty in dispersing an unlawful assembly or suppressing a riot or affray is threatened, obstructed or assaulted.

On the facts, the Court found that the allegation was only that the accused persons prevented the police authorities from producing two advocates before the Court for remand. There was no allegation in the FIR or the attendant records of assaulting or threatening policemen on such duty.

The Court stated: “As far as Section 152 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it would be made out only if any public servant, who is on duty in dispersing the unlawful assembly or suppressing a riot or affray, is threatened, obstructed or assaulted. In the instant case, the allegation is that all these accused persons prevented the Police authorities from producing the two Advocates as accused in the criminal case for the purpose of remanding them.”

The Court added: “Therefore, there is no averment in the First Information Report or in the attendant records with reference to assaulting or threatening the other Policemen who are on duty. The allegation is that, despite warnings, the protesters continued the protest.”

On Section 225 IPC, the Court held that the provision covers resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension, or rescue or attempted rescue from lawful custody.

The Court said that even if excess had been committed against the two advocates, the lawful course was to object before the Court where they were being produced, urge the Presiding Officer not to accept remand, and seek legal remedies.

It therefore held that in view of the video material considered by the Security Committee, the matter could not be quashed on the ground that no prima facie case under Section 225 of the IPC existed.

Despite finding prima facie material under Section 225 of the IPC, the Court took note of the subsequent conduct of the police and the passage of time. It was considered that after the incident, the police did not make any further attempt to produce the two arrested advocates before the concerned Court and instead released them on station bail. The Court also noted that the case remained without a final report, the incident was of 2023, and the FIR was registered only in 2025.

The Court held: “At the same time, considering that the respondent Police, after the incident, did not make any further attempt to produce the two persons before the concerned Court but, in turn, they themselves enlarged them on bail and that the case also remains without filing a Final Report till date, and considering the manner of prevention of duty where the protest had exceeded its limits, and considering that the occurrence is of the year 2023 and ultimately the F.I.R was filed in the year 2025 and the petitioners have been facing the proceedings for the past three years, I am of the view that the First Information Report, with reference to Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code, can also be quashed, considering the peculiar nature of the facts of the case, where, even now, it is being asserted that members of the Bar were being targeted without any involvement.”

The Court, however, made the quashing conditional upon the petitioners filing affidavits expressing regret within ten working days.

Conclusion

The Court disposed of the petition by directing that if the petitioners file affidavits expressing regret for the incident of November 2, 2023, the FIR in Crime No.11 of 2025 shall stand quashed.

It clarified that if any petitioner fails to file such an affidavit, the case against that petitioner may proceed with reference to the offence under Section 225 IPC. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

Cause Title: Ajith Kumar S & Ors. v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:3243)

Click here to read/download Judgment