Jayant i Prasad Saxena v. St at e of Ut t arakhand ot hers

Dist rict Magist rat e, Udham Singh Nagar t o regist er a First I nform at ion Report regar ding act s of om ission and com m ission com m it t ed by t he appellant w hile deciding t he aforesaid cases.

4. The Consolidat ion Officer, Udham Singh Nagar issued a consequent ial let t er dat ed 01.04.2015 t o Consolidat ion Officer, Kichha, asking him t o r egist er First I nform at ion Repor t against t he appellant .

5. Feeling aggrieved by t he afor esaid let t ers dat ed

02.03.2015 and 01.04.2015, appellant filed Writ Pet it ion ( Crl.) No. 451 of 2015. Learned Single Judge dism issed t he writ pet it ion filed by t he appellant , vide j udgm ent dat ed

27.07.2018. The im pugned j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - “ 2. Brief fact s of t he case are t hat t he pet it ioner, while post ed as Assist ant Consolidat ion Officer at Consolidat ion Court , Kichha, Dist r ict Udham Singh Nagar, decided cases no.992/ 1995 and 344 of 1995, t he said j udgm ent , aggr ieved part y preferred an appeal, wherein t he pet it ioner was confirm ed. Furt her aggrieved, aggr ieved part y went in j udgm ent dat ed 2.1.1995. Against t he order passed by 2 t he revision. Meanwhile, t he pet it ioner aft er at t aining t he age of superannuat ion, got ret ired from service on 31.7.1997. On 02.6.2014, a com plaint w as m oved by one Nanhu Singh Pal alleging t hat t he pet it ioner has passed j udgm ent dat ed 2.1.1995, w it hout j urisdict ion and has caused crores of revenue loss t o t he St at e. On t he com plaint , inquir y was conduct ed and inquir y report was subm it t ed by Joint Direct or, A.T.I ., Nainit al before t he Com m issioner st at ing t hat m ut at ion has been m ade on t he basis of com prom ise and t here is no regist ered sale deed and t hat t he j udgm ent passed by t he pet it ioner, on t he basis of adverse possession, is not correct . Thereaft er, t he Com m issioner sent a let t er t o t he D.D.C./ Dist r ict Magist rat e, Udham Singh Nagar, t ake act ion against t he pet it ioner in accordance wit h law. Dist r ict Magist rat e, aft er seeking opinion from t he D.G.C. ( Civil) , sent a let t er t o t he Com m issioner st at ing t hat t he pet it ioner has ret ired in t he year 1997 and he was t he em ployee of t he St at e of U.P., hence, no act ion can be t he pet it ioner. Thereaft er, 02.03.2015, on t he Com m issioner Kum aon Division, Nainit al sent a let t er t o t he Dist r ict Magist r at e, Udham Singh Nagar, st at ing t he depart m ent al proceeding cannot be init iat ed against t he pet it ioner, t herefore, F.I .R. m ay be lodged and accordingly Consolidat ion Officer, Kichha was direct ed t o lodge F.I .R. t aken against t hat as t o t he

3. Count er affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 6 wherein it is st at ed at para- 13 t hat t hen Assist ant Consolidat ion Officer ( pet it ioner) passed t he order dat ed 2.1.1995 against t he provisions of Sect ion 9A of U.P. Consolidat ion of Holdings Act , 1953. The pet it ioner, vide it s order dat ed 2.1.1995, given t he adverse possession of t he land on t he basis of t he consent / com prom ise which is against t he provisions of law. The t ransfer of t he land has been done wit hout regist ered sale deed and on account of t he illegal act , t he St at e has lost it s revenue/ st am p dut y.

4. Having heard learned counsel for t he part ies and aft er going t hrough t he m at erial available on record, t his Court does not find any illegalit y or perversit y in t he im pugned orders, so as t o invoke ext raordinary j urisdict ion under Ar t icle 226 of The Const it ut ion of I ndia.

5. Writ pet it ion lacks m erit and is hereby dism issed. No order as t o cost s.” 3

6. I n t his int ra court appeal, appellant has challenged t he afor esaid j udgm ent r endered by learned Single Judge.

7. Lear ned counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat appellant decided t he aforesaid cases during t he course of his official dut y , as he was post ed as Assist ant Consolidat ion Officer , Kichha at t he relevant point of t im e, t her efore, he cannot be held crim inally liable for deciding t hose cases. He subm it s t hat t he Judicial Officers’ Prot ect ion Act , 1850 shields j udicial officer s from law- suit s, even if t he j udgm ent render ed by t hem ex ceeds t heir j urisdict ion. Sect ion 1 of t he Judicial Officers’ Prot ect ion Act , 1850 is reproduced below , for ready r efer ence: - warrant s orders.—No “ 1. Non- liabilit y t o suit of officers act ing j udicially, for in good fait h, and of officers official act s done execut ing Judge, Magist rat e, Just ice of t he Peace, Collect or or ot her person act ing j udicially shall be liable t o be sued in any Civil Court for any act done or ordered t o be done by him in t he discharge of his j udicial dut y, whet her or not wit hin t he lim it s of his j urisdict ion: Provided t hat he at t he t im e, in good fait h, believed him self t o have j urisdict ion t o do or order t he act com plained of; and no officer of any Court or ot her person, bound lawful warrant s or orders of any such Judge, Magist rat e, Just ice of t he Peace, Collect or or ot her person act ing j udicially shall be liable t o be sued in any Civil Cour t , for t he execut ion of any warrant or order, which he would be bound t o execut e, if wit hin t he j ur isdict ion of t he person issuing t he sam e.” t o execut e t he

8. Lear ned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat reliance by appellant on Judicial Officers’ Prot ect ion Act is m isplaced, as it only provides t hat a person act ing j udicially cannot be sued in any Civil Court for t he act s done or ordered t o be 4 done in t he discharge of his j udicial dut ies. He furt her subm it s t hat prot ect ion available under t he said Act would be available only for an act done in good fait h and t he allegat ion against t he appellant is t hat he abused his power for ext raneous reasons, t hereby caused huge financial loss t o t he public exchequer .

9. Lear ned counsel for t he appellant t hen relied upon t he Judges ( Prot ect ion) Act , 1985 and subm it t ed t hat t he said act shields a per son ex ercising j udicial power s against crim inal proceedings also. Sect ion 3 of t he said Act is reproduced below: - t o t o t he t im e being force and subj ect “ 3 . A d d i t i o n a l Ju d g e s.—( 1) p r o t e ct i o n Not wit hst anding anyt hing cont ained in any ot her law t he provisions of sub- sect ion ( 2) , no court shall ent ert ain or cont inue any civil or crim inal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act , t hing or word com m it t ed, done or spoken by him when, or in t he course of, act ing or purport ing t o act in t he discharge of his official or j udicial dut y or funct ion. ( 2) Not hing in sub- sect ion ( 1) shall debar or affect in any m anner t he power of t he Cent ral Governm ent or t he St at e Governm ent or t he Suprem e Court of I ndia or any High Court or any ot her aut hor it y under any law for t he t im e being in force t o t ake such act ion ( whet her by way of civil, cr im inal, or depart m ent al proceedings or ot herwise) against any per son who is or was a Judge.”

10. Lear ned St at e Counsel cont ended t hat t he prot ect ion under Sect ion 3 of t he Judges ( Prot ect ion) Act , 1985 would not be available w hen a person perform ing j udicial funct ions, act s wit h corrupt m ot ive and abuses his posit ion as public ser vant . He furt her subm it s t hat prot ect ion of Sect ion 3 would not be available against lodging of FI R t he alleged act s of om ission and 5 com m ission by a per son act ing j udicially, as t he FI R is only t he pur pose of inv est igat ion and t he obj ect of invest igat ion t he discovery of t rut h. Learned St at e Counsel relied upon a j udgm ent rendered in S.B. Crim inal Misc. Pet it ion No. 1440 of 2013 ( Raj esh Verm a v. St at e of Raj ast han and ot her s) , r eport ed in 2014 ( 2) RLW 1207 ( Raj .) . Paragraph no. 7 of t he said j udgm ent is reproduced below: - j udge “ 7. The cont ent ion of t he present pet it ioner is t hat he has act ed as a j udge and in good fait h, hence he is prot ect ed under Sect ion 2 of t he Act of 1985 and Jain reliance has been placed on Sm t . Gyat ri P.C.S. v. St at e of Punj ab, ( 2005) 140 PLR 225 wherein it has been held t hat Sect ion 3 of t he Act of 1985 gives prot ect ion t o every person who is em powered by law t o give in any legal pr oceedings a definit ive j udgm ent . Here in t he present case, it cannot be disput ed t hat present pet it ioner w as working as a t he capacit y of Sub Divisional Officer. Furt her reliance has been placed on S.P. Goel v. Collect or of St am ps, Delhi, ( 1996) 1 SCC 573 where it has been held t hat even Collect or ( St am ps) is ent it led from im m unit y from legal act ion cont em plat ed by t he act . Per cont ra, relied upon Ravi respondent has t he Shankar Srivast ava v. St at e of Raj ., WLC ( Raj .) 2005 ( 2) 612 where t he court has held t hat when t he public servant has accept ed t he grat ificat ion, he cannot claim t he im m unit y under t he Act . This is not t he case here in t he present m at t er. Furt her reliance has been placed on Shant u Lal Shar m a v. St at e of Raj ., Cr.L.R. ( Raj .) 2005 ( 2) 1370 wher e it has been held t hat prot ect ion under Sect ion 2 or 3 of is not unbounded and unqualified where t he pet it ioner has act ed wit h corrupt m ot ive and abused his office as public servant , he cannot claim prot ect ion. There is no quarrel about t his legal proposit ion but here in t he present case, not hing has been alleged in t he First I nform at ion Report t hat present pet it ioner has m isused his power as Sub Divisional Officer, he was com pet ent t o decide t he issue which he has decided.” t he Act of 1985

11. Lear ned St at e Counsel furt her subm it s t hat t he allegat ion against t he appellant is t hat , he not only act ed wit hout j urisdict ion w hile passing t he or der , but , he also m ade over writ ing in t he j udicial records, and for discovery 6 of t rut h, a t horough inv est igat ion would be necessary; t her e is not hing wrong t he direct ion issued by Com m issioner, Kum aon Division t o regist er FI R against t he appellant . He furt her subm it s t hat since appellant ret ired in 1997, t herefor e, he has becom e im m une from depart m ent al proceedings and regist rat ion of FI R is t he only rem edy available for discovery of t rut h. He furt her subm it s t hat by regist rat ion of FI R, no pr ej udice is going t o be caused t o t he appellant , as t he police will invest igat e t he m at t er and file char gesheet or closur e r eport , as t he case m ay be, depending on t he evidence collect ed during invest igat ion.

12. This Court finds subst ance in t he subm issions m ade by learned St at e Counsel. The prot ect ion under Judicial Officers Prot ect ion Act , 1850 is available only against proceedings in a Civil Cour t . The prot ect ion under t he Judges ( Prot ect ion) Act , 1885 w ould not be av ailable t o t he appellant in case he has act ed wit h corr upt m ot ive and abused his posit ion as public servant and forged t he r ecord. This aspect can only be ascert ained during t he invest igat ion by t he police. The obj ect of invest igat ion is discov ery of t rut h, t her efor e, appellant should not be afraid of invest igat ion, if he has dischar ged his dut ies in good fait h, wit hout any corr upt m ot ive. 7

13. We concur wit h t he view expr essed by learned Single Judge. Thus, t here is no scope for int erfer ence wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent .

14. The Special Appeal fails and is dism issed. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

28.04.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH 8