In a case where an FIR against an advocate for obstructing revenue officials during a survey was dismissed by the Madras High Court, the court emphasized that the advocate's actions, although forceful, were not aimed at preventing government officials from fulfilling their duties but rather intended to safeguard the rights of his client.

The court stated, “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.”

Justice Anand Venkatesh additionally remarked that considering the nature of the legal profession, which entails advocating for clients' rights, it is common for advocates to display a more assertive approach even outside the courtroom. He further noted that an advocate's conduct typically differs from that of an ordinary person because their profession necessitates them to respond vigorously to various situations.

The court also added that an advocate's behavior is inherently distinct from that of an ordinary person. Given the role they hold and the responsibilities they undertake, advocates often respond assertively in most circumstances. This demeanor is cultivated by advocates due to the nature of their duty, which primarily revolves around advocating for their client's rights. The legal profession entails vigorous advocacy on behalf of clients, and advocates tend to exhibit a more assertive approach even beyond the confines of the courtroom.

In the current case, the complaint against the advocate was instigated by the Revenue Inspector. The advocate and his client engaged in a dispute with the inspector when he conducted a survey on the property in question to address encroachments on government poramboke land, following the prescribed procedure under the Land Encroachment Act. As the accused individuals obstructed the officials from performing their official duties, an FIR was lodged, charging them with offenses under Section 341 IPC (wrongful restraint) and Section 353 IPC (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging duty).

The petitioner-advocate contended that he had initiated legal proceedings on behalf of his client in the District Munsiff Court, Mettur. His actions of questioning the officials were undertaken solely to protect and uphold the interests of his client.

The court observed that continuing the investigation in this case amounted to an abuse of the legal process. As a result, the court decided to annul the FIR filed against the petitioner.