K.L. WADANE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this application is taken up for final disposal.

2. This application is filed by the applicant under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of first information report registered vide M.A.No. 1/2007 with Soygaon police station for the offences punishable under section 166, 167, 193, 465, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Heard Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Nerlikar, learned APP for the respondent/State and Mr. P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

4. The respondent No. 2 herein filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Soygaon, bearing Criminal Case No. 82/2007 against five accused persons including applicant, Tahsildar, Nayab Tahsildar, Talathi and one Khemraj Jadhav. It is alleged by the respondent No. 2/original complainant that accused No. 1 Khemraj is having land gat No. 208 admeasuring 8-H 30-R situated at Palshi Tq. Soygaon. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 2/complainant has purchased 1-H 20-R land out of 8-H 30-R land from accused No. 1 by way of registered sale-deed on 28.1.1994. His name is mutated in the 7x12 extract.

5. It is further alleged that there was dispute between respondent No. 2 and the accused No. 1 Khemraj, therefore, in the year 2002 the respondent No. 2 filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 29/2002 with the allegation that the accused No. 1 took physical possession by force and accused No. 2 to 5 aided him. Thereafter the accused No. 1 Khemraj filed an application to inspect the crops, to the accused No. 3 Tahsildar. Accused No. 5 Talathi gave notice to the complainant and the date for inspection was fixed on 26.06.2002. However, it is allegation of the respondent No. 2/original complainant that they did not turn up to the field and the accused No. 4 and 5 i.e. Nayab Tahsildar and Talathi prepared false panchnama on 27.06.2002. On the basis of that document the accused No. 5 Talathi took entry in the 7x12 extract in cultivation column in favour of accused No. 1 Khemraj. Therefore, the respondent No. 2/original complainant filed an appeal before the present applicant and the applicant granted stay to the mutation entry. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2/original complainant also filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on which the learned Magistrate has issued direction under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon such direction the first information report is lodged and registered against the applicant and others.

6. Mr. Ghanekar, learned counsel for applicant submits that at the relevant time when applicant passes certain orders, she was acting as a Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the concerned division and in the judicial proceeding she has passed some orders, therefore, the applicant is a “Judge” within the meaning of definition under section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. According to Mr. Ghanekar, learned counsel, the appeal under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code presented by the accused No. 1 Khemraj as well as the appeal presented by the respondent No. 2 /original complainant are judicial proceedings and if certain orders are passed in judicial proceedings then those are passed in the capacity of a 'Judge'. Therefore, there is protection to the applicant under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Hence, Mr. Ghanekar submitted that the trial court is not empowered to take cognizance of the alleged offences.

7. As against this, Mr. P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/original complainant argued that there was no appeable order, therefore, the act of the applicant was without jurisdiction. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submitted that when there was no order rather appeable it was not expected from the applicant to pass the stay