Madras HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Advocates Who Protested Toll Road, Finds No Criminal Intent

The Madras High Court quashed charges filed against two advocates who staged a protest demanding toll-free passage on the Trichy-Chennai highway, holding their conduct amounted to lawful democratic expression and attracted no criminal ingredient.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Madras, on 16 July 2026 quashed the final report and all connected proceedings in S.T.C.No.921 of 2026 pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Ulundurpet. The petitioners—Rajkumar and Sreethar @ Sridharan, both members of the Bar—had been charged under Sections 189(2), 223, and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) following a protest they staged demanding that the toll road between Trichy and Chennai be made free of cost for advocates. The court found no evidence of violence, no disturbance to public order, and no material to infer any criminal intent. The quashing order extends to all accused in the case, not merely the two petitioners.

The Protest and the Criminal Proceedings

The case arose from Crime No.738 of 2024 registered by the Ulundurpet Police Station, Kallakurichi District. According to the allegations, the petitioners and others assembled without permission and staged the protest. A final report was subsequently filed under three provisions of the BNS: Section 189(2), which concerns unlawful assembly; Section 223, dealing with obstruction of a public servant or public way; and Section 126(2), which relates to wrongful restraint or confinement.

After the Magistrate took cognisance in S.T.C.No.921 of 2026, the petitioners approached the Madras High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the provision that now confers on the High Court its inherited jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings.

The Legal Objection to Section 223 BNS

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M. Kalaiyarasan, pressed a specific procedural bar against the Section 223 charge. He relied on this court's earlier ruling in Jeevanandham and others v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police and another, reported at 2018 (2) LW Crl.606, to submit that a charge under Section 223 of the BNS cannot be taken cognisance of by the High Court except by following a specific procedure prescribed under the BNSS.

Justice Chakravarthy accepted this contention. The judgment confirms that the Section 223 charge was legally unsustainable on that procedural ground alone, independent of the merits of the protest.

No Violence, No Intent: The Court's Reasoning on the Remaining Charges

On Sections 189(2) and 126(2), the court examined the materials placed along with the final report. It found no evidence of violence and no disturbance to public order. Equally, nothing in the record supported an inference that the petitioners intended to commit any criminal offence.

The court characterised the entire episode as nothing but an expression of their right to democratic protest, adding that the reason for the protest was, in the court's own description, a “bizarre reason.” The observation was pointed: when a toll is legally collected from the public, it must be paid by members of the Bar as well.

That observation carried a doctrinal consequence. The court declined to treat the petitioners' professional status as a factor that either aggravates or mitigates their conduct. Membership of the Bar, in the court's view, places an advocate on no separate pedestal—for better or for worse. The peaceful nature of the protest was what mattered, not the identity of those who staged it.

Having found that the actions of the petitioners and others did not attract the ingredients of any criminal offence under any of the three charged provisions, the court concluded that the proceedings could not survive.

Scope of the Quashing Order

The relief granted was comprehensive. The court quashed the final report and all further proceedings in S.T.C.No.921 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Ulundurpet, against the petitioners as well as the other accused in the case. The two connected miscellaneous petitions—CRL.MP.Nos.12613 and 12614 of 2026—were closed.

The order was directed to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ulundurpet; the Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Station, Kallakurichi District; and the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Order

CRL.OP.No.18935 of 2026 was allowed on 16 July 2026. The final report and all proceedings in S.T.C.No.921 of 2026 before the Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Ulundurpet, stand quashed in their entirety against both the petitioners and the other accused. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.