RAJESH H. KHUKLA, J. - The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the prayer that the FIR bearing Crime Register No.02/2012 of Gujarat High Vigila nce Cell Police Station, Ahmedabad may be quashed and set aside and also prayed to stay the Departmental Inquiry No.5/2011 till the pendency of the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the grounds stated in the memo of Application.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.B.Mehta for the Applicant. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta has referred to the papers and submitted that normally a complaint is required to be filed and registered before the “Police Station”, which has been defined under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He pointedly referred to the definition of the “Police Station” that there should be a notification issued by the State Government and there is no such notification with regard to the alleged Police Station of Vigilance Cell, Gujarat High Court, and therefore, it is not an FIR, for which any cognizance can be taken. He has also submitted that till such notification is published or it is declared as a Police Station, such FIR could not be lodged or registered. Further, learned Advocate Mr. Mehta has submitted that the complainant is a Inspector Gopalsinh Barot and is aged about 61 years, and normally, the date of retirement of the Police Officer is 58, years, and therefore, he should not have filed any complaint.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta has also referred to the provisions of The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (Act No.59 of 1985) [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and has referred to Section 3 of the said Act which has been reproduced at page M. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta has therefore stated that; it is provided in this Act - that no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against a person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta has therefore submitted that the allegations in the FIR are with regard to the judgment / order delivered when he was a Civil Judge (SD) in a case regarding which the allegations are made. He submitted that such provision is made to provide protection to the judicial officers for the act done in discharge of the duty.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta has relied upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1994 SC 1031, K.P.Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in (1998) (3) GLR, 2648, R.C.Sood v. H.C.of Rajasthan and Ors. to emphasize that no complaint against a judicial officer should be entertained unless it is supported by affidavit. He has also referred to the observations made in case of P.C.Joshi v. State of U.P., 2001 (3) GLR, 2642 and submitted that the present FIR may be quashed and set aside. He has emphasized that the respect of the judiciary is not enhanced when the Judges at the lower level are criticized. He has therefore submitted that the present Petition may be allowed.

5. Though the submissions have been made, the first aspect which is required to be considered is whether the FIR, which is registered at “Gujarat High Court Vigilance Cell” that it is not a “Police Station” unless it is notified by any notification. It is required to be mentioned that the “Gujarat High Court Vigilance Cell” has been notified by the State Government as a “Police Station” by Notification dated 31.3.1994. Therefore, this submission cannot be accepted.

6. It is required to be mentioned that as stated in the complaint / FIR itself, the preliminary inquiry has been made and on the basis thereof when the Vigilance Cell has made a inquiry, a confidential communication has been addressed with the report, on the basis of which the FIR /