OM PRAKASH Vs. SURJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Omprakash Shrivastava is a Tahsildar and against him non-applicant has filed a criminal complaint before JMFC, Sanwer. The main crux of the complaint is that applicant was posted as Tahsildar and passed order dated 15.7.1999 in Case No. 2/A/74/97-98 though he was not having jurisdiction to hear and decide this case. The review permission was granted by order dated 15.9.1998 in favour of the non-applicant by Additional Collector, Indore and the review petition should have not been heard by the applicant because according to distribution memo, he was not having jurisdiction to hear the same and he should have forwarded this file before the appropriate Court/Authority. The applicant heard the review petition which was in respect of some mutation proceeding and did not consider the review on the. ground that between the parties Civil and Criminal cases are pending before the judicial Courts. Therefore, as per provision u/s 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the decision rendered by the Civil Court would be binding upon the revenue Court. Therefore, no order could be passed in this review petition. The applicant has closed the case.

(2.) THE contention of the L.C. for applicant is that as per provision u/s 31 of the MPLR Code, he acted as revenue Court. Against passing of the order dated 15.1.1999, the non-applicant was having remedy by way of filing appeal and he had filed the appeal and the same was dismissed. The learned counsel has submitted that in view of the provisions of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (for brevity 'the Act'), the applicant is also protected since he acted as a revenue Court and his function also falls within the definition of 'Judge' as defined in section 2 of this Act and for passing any illegal order or order without jurisdiction, he cannot be prosecuted by way of filing criminal complaint in view of the provision of section 3 which has given full protection to the person who acted as Judge. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 550/2001 (Harbhajanlal Anand v. State of M.P.). On these points, the counsel for applicant prayed for quashing of the proceedings because the Court below has no jurisdiction to entertain criminal complaint filed by the non-applicant in view of the provision of sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the view that the criminal complaint filed by the non-applicant against the applicant who acted|as a. revenue Court and who has been fully protected as per provision under sections 2 and 3 of the Act which reads as under :