Madras High Court quashes FIR against 20 farmers over poultry-wage protest, citing lack of specific allegations of violence or restraint

The second respondent, a manager of Suguna Foods Pvt. Ltd., alleged that on 12 January 2026 the petitioners obstructed his car and intercepted a vehicle carrying chicks.

The complaint further alleged that they pelted stones at the vehicle, damaged it, and threatened its driver and cleaner.

The petitioners said they were farmers seeking higher poultry-protection wages and that their collective action was a non-violent production stoppage following prior representations and notice to the authorities.

On the complaint, the police registered Crime No. 26 of 2026 for offences under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed the ingredients of the alleged BNS offences, including rioting, wrongful restraint, obscene words and criminal intimidation.

2. Whether the FIR should be quashed as an abuse of process, including insofar as it alleged an offence under Section 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The Court considered Sections 191(2), 126(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of the BNS, and Section 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

It stated that rioting requires an unlawful assembly with a common object and the use of force or violence; wrongful restraint requires a specific restraint of a person’s movement; Section 296(b) requires obscene words uttered in or near a public place to the annoyance of others; and criminal intimidation requires a threat intended to cause alarm or compel or prevent an act.

The Court relied on K. Jeyaramanuju v. Janakaraj & Anr., 1996 (1) CTC 470, for the requirement of proof of annoyance under the corresponding IPC provision.

The Court relied on Abdul Agis v. State, Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11030 of 2014, on the need for a real threat and actual apprehension.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (Cri) 426, on quashing proceedings that fall within the recognised categories of abuse of process, including malicious proceedings instituted with an ulterior motive.

The Court found the allegations of unlawful assembly, common object, force and individual participation vague and omnibus, and concluded that the alleged conduct did not establish rioting or wrongful restraint.

It held that the FIR did not identify obscene words or show that anyone was annoyed by them, and treated the alleged threats as lacking the real quality or effect required for criminal intimidation.

On that basis, it characterised the FIR as an abuse of process and quashed it.

Although the FIR also invoked Section 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the order contains no separate discussion of that provision or an express assessment of the alleged vehicle damage.