Advocates Cannot Prevent Police From Producing Arrested Lawyers In Court : Madras High Court

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a plea by 10 lawyers to quash the criminal case registered against them for preventing the police from producing two advocates, accused in an NDPS case, before the court.

The court noted that if the advocates wanted to show solidarity against police excess, they could protest in a democratic and peaceful manner. However, when the advocates prevented the police from producing the accused in the court, the same would be an offence under Section 225 of the IPC.

“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 court said.

“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,” the court further noted.

As per the prosecution, the police had apprehended two advocates in connection with an NDPS case and had kept them confined in the Police Control Room Booth. When the police took them to the Special Court for NDPS Cases within the High Court premises, the petitioner advocates protested despite warnings from police personnel. The prosecution argued that the advocates also prevented the police from exercising their lawful duty of producing the accused for remand.

The Security Committee of the High Court, after perusing the video footage of the incident, opined that the action of the advocates amounted to obstruction of public servants from performing their duty. A complaint was forwarded to the Bar Council for further action, and a complaint was lodged by the Registrar (Administration), based on which a case was registered for offences under Sections 186, 152, 225 of the IPC. Seeking to quash this case, the present plea was filed.

The advocates, on the other hand, argued that they held only a peaceful protest when the police had falsely picked up the two Advocates and sought to produce them in court. The advocates argued that they had only exercised their democratic right in favour of their fellow members of the Bar.

It was only argued that after realising their mistake, the police had taken back the accused lawyers and let them on Station Bail, and no charge sheet had been filed against them till date.

The court noted that for an offence under Section 186 IPC, no FIR could have been registered without a complaint. With respect to Section 152, the court noted that there was nothing in the FIR to show that the police were threatened or assaulted while on duty.

With respect to Section 225, which is attracted when any person resists or obstructs lawful apprehension of any other person for an offence, the court noted that the same was attracted, since the advocates had prevented the police from producing the accused before the court.

However, noting that the police had not proceeded against the accused advocates and that the FIR was registered in 2025 for the occurrence in 2023, the court was inclined to quash the offence under Section 225, provided that the lawyers file an affidavit expressing regret for their extreme behaviour.

The court thus directed the petitioners to file an affidavit expressing regret within 10 days, after which the FIR could be quashed. The court added that if any advocate did not file the affidavit, the case against them under Section 225 of IPC could be proceeded with.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. C. Paul Kanagaraj

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

Case Title: Ajith Kumar and Others v The State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 371

Case No: Crl OP No.29355 of 2025