The main legal point established in the judgment is that the protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985 does not apply to actions that do not constitute a definitive judgment in a legal proceeding.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the F.I.R. of Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 319 of 2017 dated 22.06.2017, registered under Sections 406/409/419/420/467/468 /471/120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 7/8/9/13(1)(c)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and others.

3. The prayer is on the ground that the criminal act has been alleged in connection with an official and judicial act performed by the petitioner in his official capacity, as such, the protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985 is applicable in the matter of the petitioner also and secondly on the ground that the F.I.R. discloses no offence against the petitioner.

4. A brief background leading to institution of the aforesaid F.I.R. is that one Devendra Kumar filed petition before co-accused, the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, praying therein for fixation of rent in his name as well as in the name of the referred family members in respect of Plot Nos.62, 65, 71 and 73 under Khata No.16 and Plot No.63, 64 and 72 under Khata No.22, all situated in Mohalla Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, District-Patna. The prayer was on the ground that the lands are ancestral lands of the applicant and are recorded in the survey record of rights in the name of Daljit Mahto son of Bulaki Mahto, the ancestor of the applicant. The applicant enclosed an affidavit supporting the aforesaid statement as well as a genealogy of the descendents of Daljit Mahto. The application and the supporting affidavit are at page-49 to 53 of the writ application. At page-54, the applicant had enclosed a copy of the continuous khatiyan, which would reveal that only plots of Khata No.16 were in the name of Daljit Mahto and the referred plots of Khata No.22 were in the name of Nirmal son of Rup Chandra (not the ancestors of the applicant). For the reasons best known to the authorities, who are co-accused in this case, Rent Fixation Case No.24 of 2016-2017 was started only in respect of the plots of Khata No.22, which was not the ancestral property of the applicant Devendra Kumar. The order sheet of the rent fixation proceeding is at page-29 of the writ application. The orders dated 13.07.2016 and 20.07.2016 would reveal that supporting the possession of applicant report of Circle Inspector was received though the reality was that no inspection report of Circle Inspector was ever received on the record. The order dated 20.07.2016 of co-accused Circle Officer would reveal that the rent of the land was never fixed whereas the facts on record would reveal that the rent of the aforesaid land was already fixed. Co-accused, the Local Karmchari wrongly submitted a report that lands of Khata No.22 are in possession of applicant Devendra Kumar, whereas the fact is that the land was possessed by South Bihar Power Distribution Company surrounded under a boundary wall with office and Electric Supply Installation standing thereon. By the same order dated 20.07.2016, the Circle Officer placed the matter for fixation of rent before the petitioner, who was DCLR, Patna Sadar at that time. The petitioner allowed the prayer for fixation of rent in favour of Devendra Kumar by order dated 19.08.2016 at page-41. By the same order the petitioner, after fixation of rent in favour of Devendra Kumar, directed to the co-accused, who was Circle Officer, to ensure undisputed possession of Devendra Kumar on the land aforesaid and also to ensure that the mutation in respect of the said land is not in the name of any other person. It was further ordered that the rent was fixed for the purpose of realization of rent only and not to create any title in favour of anyone.

5. It is worth to mention here that the petitioner should not have fixed the rent without ensuring by supporting document that rent of the land is not fixed, the land is i