The protection under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 provides complete protection against any civil or criminal proceeding against a Judge for any act done by him in the discharge of his official or judicial functions.

1. Mr. Marwadi, learned Advocate appointed on behalf of the petitioner seeks leave to implead the State of Maharashtra, as respondent No.4. Leave granted. Amendment be effected immediately.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the Counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.

3. To state in brief, the wife and minor children of the present petitioner had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 130/1997 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the J.M.F.C., Ichalkarnji. The application was contested by the petitioner. After hearing the parties, respondent No.1 Mr. J.B. Anandgaonkar, the then J.M.F.C., passed the order dated 14/11/1997 allowing the maintenance application. That order was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No.222/1997 before the Sessions Court, Kolhapur contending that the learned Magistrate had not made proper inquiry about the various aspects. That revision application was allowed by order dated 16/1/2001 and the maintenance application was remanded back to the J.M.F.C., Ichalkaranji for fresh inquiry. After fresh inquiry respondent No.2 Mr.G.G. Bhansali passed the order dated 4/4/2003 granting maintenance to the wife and the children. That order was again challenged by the petitioner in Revision Application No.148/2003, which was rejected by the respondent No.3 Smt. P.P. Kulkarni by the judgment dated 17/8/2004.

4. The petitioner filed a complaint against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under sections 219 and 220 of I.P.C. in the Court of J.M.F.C., Ichalkaranji on 24/11/2004, which was registered as M.A. Application No. 312/2004 and the matter was put up for arguments on the point of maintainability of such a complaint. By the order dated 5/2/2005, the learned J.M.F.C., Ichalkaranji rejected that complaint, holding that all the three respondents had passed the orders from time to time, while acting in the discharge of the official duties as Judicial Magistrates or as Additional Sessions Judge and in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act , 1985, no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against Judicial Officer for any act done by them in the course of acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties or functions. That order was challenged by the present petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No.201/20005, under section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, Kolhapur. Written notes of arguments were also submitted by him in support of his contentions that all these three Judicial Officers had not considered the facts, oral and documentary evidence and the circumstances and had wrongly passed the orders in favour of his wife. After hearing the petitioner and after going through the relevant provisions of law, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji, dismissed the Revision Application with costs of Rs.5000/-. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the dismissal of his complaint by the Courts below.

5. At the outset it may be stated that I did not find it necessary to issue notice to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who had passed the orders while discharging their functions, as Judicial Officers. Heard Mr. Marwadi learned Advocate appointed for the petitioner and Mr. Adsule, APP.

6. From the facts leading to filing of the complaint, as stated above, it is clear that none of the three respondents had done any act in their personal capacity. The orders which were passed by them were strictly in the discharge of their official duties and functions. Where a Judicial Officer has committed any error in appreciating the facts and the oral and documentary evidence before passing the order, that order can be challenged as per the provisions of law and the appellate or revisional authority can consider the judgment and order passed by the concerned Judicial Officer and may come to its own conclu