IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of Revenue Officers to protection under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, for their quasi-judicial acts, as well as the judicial appealability of their orders under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in present two petitions, they were clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. By way of petition under Section 482 CrPC petitioner-Rajkumar Tamboli has prayed for following relief:-

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned FIR bearing No.30/2014 and final report No.124/2023 submitted by the Police of Police Station Darri before the learned JMFC, Katghora, District Korba for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner and entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No.1278/2023 pending before the learned JMFC, Katghora, District-Korba (CG) against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

3. By way of petition under Section 482 CrPC petitioner-Ashok Kumar Marbal has prayed for following reliefs:-

“a. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the impugned criminal case No.1278/2023 parties namely the State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Darri Vs. Mankesharlal others initiated by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Katghora, District Korba (CG)

b. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire charge sheet No.124/2023 (Annexure P-1) submitted by respondent No.1 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora District Korba (CG), particularly in relation to the present petitioner.

c. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Criminal proceeding initiated by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora District Korba (CG) in Criminal Case No.1278/2023 parties namely State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Darri Vs. Mankesharlal others (Annexure P-1).”

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant-Indrapal Singh Kanwar filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora alleging therein that at the relevant point of time the present petitioner was posted and working as Tahsildar. Accused Mankeshwar Lal has sold out the land bearing khasra No.230/1 situated at village Jamunapali, P.H.No.17 through registered sale deed to different persons and the purchasers filed application for mutation and on the basis of registered sale deed, the petitioner while discharging the duties of revenue Court, has ordered for mutation of the subject land in the name of purchasers (co-accused) as per then provisions contained in Sections 109 & 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called as ‘Code’). It is alleged that said Mankeshwar Lal had filed an appeal No.15/A-23/2006-07 before the Additional Collector, Korba in respect of subject land, which was dismissed by order dated 19.11.2007 and directed for acting as per the provisions contained in Section 177 of the Code. On the basis of complaint of complainant-Indrapal Singh Kanwar, vide order dated 15.01.2014 learned JMFC, Korba directed the concerned Police Station Darri for conducting investigation into the complaint and submit report. On the basis of direction of the learned JMFC, Katghora, the police station Darri has registered the FIR against the accused persons including the present petitioners. Hence, these petitions.

5. Mr. Anil S. Pandey and Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that that the petitioners at the relevant point of time were Tahsildar and acted as revenue officer within the meaning of Sections 11 and 31 of the Code and therefore, their order deemed to be an order of the revenue Court and order passed in quasi-judicial capacity was judicially appealable under Section 44(1) of the Code, as such, he cannot be subjected to be criminal prosecution as order passed in quasi-judicial capacity in view of provisions contained in Section 2 read with Section 3 of the Provisions under the Judges (Protection) Act