The Patna High Court held that a public officer performing quasi-judicial duties in mutation proceedings qualifies as a “Judge” under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Consequently, criminal prosecution for such official orders is barred unless statutory exceptions apply.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PATNA: In a judgment reinforcing the protection available to public servants exercising quasi-judicial powers, the Patna High Court has quashed an FIR, sanction for prosecution, and all consequential criminal proceedings against a senior government officer. The Court held that criminal prosecution cannot be used as a weapon to challenge judicial or quasi-judicial orders, especially when statutory remedies like appeal are available.
The ruling strongly reiterates the scope of Section 197 CrPC and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, while cautioning against malicious and vexatious prosecutions arising out of private property disputes.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mr. S. Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar, a serving Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, was earlier posted as Executive Officer, Bankipur Circle, Patna Municipal Corporation.
The criminal proceedings arose from Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 238 of 2014, registered based on a complaint alleging that:
- The petitioner, in connivance with private individuals, passed a stay order in mutation proceedings
- The stay allegedly favoured persons who had obtained mutation of property through fraudulent means
- The petitioner was accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC
Subsequently, the Law Department, Government of Bihar, granted sanction for prosecution on 28 December 2020, which became the central challenge before the High Court.
The complainant alleged that:
- A property in Rajendra Nagar, Patna, originally owned by Dr. Gyan Kaur Yadav, was fraudulently mutated in favour of a third party
- The petitioner, while acting as Executive Officer, stayed the mutation proceedings pending a civil title suit
- The stay order was described as “cryptic” and collusive
- Holding tax receipts were issued reflecting the incorrect parentage of the beneficiary
Importantly, the mutation itself had taken place in 2005, much before the petitioner’s posting.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Tells Centre & J&K: Provide Space for CAT in Jammu Within a Month
Issues Before the Court
- Whether a quasi-judicial order passed by an Executive Officer can attract criminal prosecution
- Whether the sanction under Section 197 CrPC was valid
- Applicability of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, to mutation authorities
- Whether the FIR and charge-sheet amounted to an abuse of criminal process
Court’s Analysis and Findings
1. Executive Officer Acts as a Quasi-Judicial Authority
The Court held that while deciding mutation matters, an Executive Officer exercises quasi-judicial functions and therefore falls within the wide definition of “Judge” under Section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
Any person empowered by law to render a definitive judgment in legal proceedings is deemed a “Judge”, regardless of official designation.
2. Judges (Protection) Act Bars Criminal Proceedings
Relying on multiple precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Court reaffirmed that:
- No civil or criminal proceeding can be entertained for acts done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of judicial or quasi-judicial duties
- Errors, even if gross, must be corrected in an appeal, not through criminal prosecution
The Court emphasized that the protection exists not for the benefit of officers, but in the public interest, to ensure fearless and independent decision-making.
3. Mere Passing of a Stay Order Is Not a Criminal Act
The stay order dated 27.06.2013 was passed after remand from the appellate authority, because a civil title suit (Title Suit No. 507 of 2011) involving the same property was pending to avoid adjudicating title disputes in revenue proceedings
The Court categorically held that staying mutation proceedings pending a civil suit is a legally sound exercise of jurisdiction, not a criminal offence.
4. Sanction for Prosecution Was Invalid
The Court found the sanction order dated 28.12.2020 to be:
- Cryptic and non-speaking
- Passed without application of mind
- Silent on why statutory protection under the Judges (Protection) Act and Section 197 CrPC was being lifted
Relying on Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta and Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025), the Court reiterated that:
Sanction for prosecution is a solemn safeguard, not an empty formality.
5. Criminal Law Cannot Be Used to Settle Property Disputes
The Court observed that:
- The complainant had already initiated civil and criminal proceedings against private individuals
- The petitioner was added later merely because he passed an unfavourable order
- Such prosecution amounts to malafide harassment and abuse of process
The Patna High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to protection under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, the sanction order suffered from non-application of mind and the FIR and charge-sheet were legally unsustainable
In view of the above discussions, the impugned FIR vide Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 238 of 2014 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the impugned sanction order dated 28.12.2020, are hereby quashed qua the present petitioner. Accordingly, the present quashing petition is allowed.
Case Title:
S. KUMAR @ SHAILESH KUMAR versus The State of Bihar
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1897 of 2022
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports on Quasi-Judicial Functions