Court Upholds Protection Under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 for Revenue Officers Acting in Quasi-Judicial Capacity
In a landmark judgment, the Patna High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Mr. S. Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar, an Executive Officer at the Circle Office, Bankipur, Patna Municipal Corporation. The proceedings were initiated based on allegations of collusion and corruption related to the mutation of property in Rajendra Nagar, Patna. The judgment reinforces the protection afforded to revenue officers acting in a quasi-judicial capacity under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Milan Kumar Sudhakar, alleging illegal mutation of property ownership. The mutation proceedings were stayed by Mr. Kumar due to a pending Title Suit concerning the same property. The complainant accused Mr. Kumar of passing a cryptic stay order in collusion with other accused persons for extraneous considerations.
Mr. Kumar petitioned the High Court to quash the sanction for prosecution and the charge-sheet filed against him, arguing that his actions were in discharge of his official duties and protected under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. He contended that the criminal proceedings were initiated to settle personal scores over property disputes.
Justice Sandeep Kumar, in his judgment, emphasized that revenue officers acting in a quasi-judicial capacity are entitled to protection under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The court noted that the protection shields officers from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done in discharge of their official or judicial duties, unless there is evidence of malafide intent or extraneous considerations.
The court also scrutinized the sanction order for prosecution, deeming it cryptic and lacking application of mind. The judgment highlighted that sanctioning authorities must demonstrate objective satisfaction before granting prosecution sanctions, as mere technical violations do not warrant disciplinary action.
The judgment references various precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, affirming that actions taken in quasi-judicial capacities should be corrected in appeal rather than forming the basis for criminal prosecution. The court concluded that the impugned order of sanction was unsustainable and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against Mr. Kumar.
This ruling underscores the importance of legal protection for officers performing quasi-judicial functions and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring that public servants can perform their duties without fear of unjustified prosecution.
Bottom Line:
Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - Revenue officers acting in quasi-judicial capacity are entitled to protection under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 for acts done in discharge of official or judicial duties unless there is a clear excess of jurisdiction or extraneous considerations involved.
Statutory provision(s): Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, Sections 2 and 3; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 197, Section 156(3); Indian Penal Code, Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B
Mr. S. Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc id # 2842383
