An FIR for Section 186 IPC is invalid without a complaint under Section 195 CrPC. Section 152 IPC requires specific conditions of riot or affray. Section 225 IPC may be quashed considering the delay in filing the FIR and a conditional apology from the accused.

Crl.O.P.No.29355 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No19964 of 2025

Prayer :

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 , to call for the records in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), for R1

ORDER

The prayer in this Criminal Original Petition is to call for the records in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police and to quash the same.

Upon perusal of the allegations contained in the First Information Report, it appears that the Hon’ble Security Committee of the High Court, after perusing the video footage pertaining to the protest of the Advocates, concluded that the said action amounts to obstruction of public servants from performing their duty and also attracts penal offences. Accordingly, it directed that a complaint be forwarded to the Bar Council for further action and that a complaint be forwarded to the Station House Officer, Esplanade Police Station, with a request to register a case and investigate the matter. Pursuant thereto, the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Madras, lodged a complaint, and the case is now registered for the alleged offences under Sections 186, 152 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code.

On further perusal of the material records of the case, it is seen that with reference to Crime No.396 of 2023 on the file of the Sathankadu Police Station, the Police had apprehended two Advocates, Dinesh and Neeraj, and brought them to be produced before the concerned Court, namely, the Special Court under the N.D.P.S Act , and for that purpose, kept them confined in the Police Control Room Booth. The petitioners/accused, being the Advocates, protested despite warnings from the personnel guarding the Courts inside the Court premises and also prevented the Police from exercising their lawful duty of producing the said two persons for remand.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that it was only a peaceful protest, as the two Advocates were falsely picked up under the N.D.P.S Act and were sought to be produced before the Court by the Sathankadu Police, and they only exercised their democratic right in favour of their fellow members of the Bar. While it is true that they committed it within the Court premises, the learned Counsel would rely upon the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.19420 of 2023 (C.Raja Vs. State and Anr.), more fully, upon paragraph No.5 of the order, which reads as follows:-

“5.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).”

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the F.I.R could not have been registered straightaway without a complaint before the appropriate Court for offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, and would rely upon the judgment of this Court in Jeevanandham and Ors. Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police and Anr.¹2018 (2) LW Crl. 606. The learned Counsel would submit that, except for protesting, it cannot be said that they prevented the Police. Realising the mistake, the Police had taken back the accu