IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial acts performed in good faith by officials are protected from criminal prosecution under the Judges (Protection) Act, preventing abuse of the judicial process.

ORDER :

(P.G. Ajithkumar, J.)

The petitioner was the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode during the relevant period. He issued Annexure A2 order issuing Purchase Certificate on 13.05.1998. C.C.No.21 of 2010 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode arose with respect to the said order. The petitioner is the 1st accused in that case. He seeks to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in C.C. No.21 of 2010 in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The petitioner also filed Crl.R.P.No.1414 of 2017 challenging the charge framed by the Special Judge in the said case on 25.10.2017. A copy of the court charge was produced therewith. In the criminal revision petition, the contentions are mainly based on the protection available to a Judge under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. During pendency of the criminal revision petition, the petitioner has filled Crl.M.C.No.5839 of 2024.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Special Public Prosecutor.

4. As per the order dated 25.10.2017, the learned Special Judge framed charge against the petitioner and his co accused. The court charge reads as follows:

“Sri.K.P.Vasu, Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, Kozhikode (A1) and Sri.A.Aboobacker, Special Revenue Inspector, Land Tribunal Kozhikkode (A2) in their official capacities as public servants during the year 1997-98 abused their official position and actively connived with Sri.P.K.Moideenkoya (A3) and his son Sri.Ummer Farooq, M(A4) and committed criminal conspiracy and A1 Sri.K.P.Vasu granted pattayam to Sri.P.K.Moideenkoya (A3) on 13.05.1998 on the basis of the report of Sri.A.Aboobacker, Special Revenue Inspector, Land Tribunal, Kozhikode (A2) and with the support of a forged sketch got prepared by a private surveyor as directed by Sri.Ummer Farooq.M.(A4) in favour of 17.70 cents of land in R.S.No.258/1 in Kasaba Village, instead of 16.60 cents, without complying the mandatory provisions under K.L.R Act for the pecuniary advantage of Sri.P.K.Moideenkoya (A3) and his son Sri.Ummer Farooq.M. (A4) and that the above act committed by the accused persons amounts to offences punishable under Sections

13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act 1988 and Sections 465, 471, 120 B IPC and hence the charge.”

5. When the court has considered the materials produced by the prosecution and formed an opinion that there was ground for presuming that the petitioner has committed the offence and accordingly a charge was framed, he cannot ordinarily be permitted to invoke provisions of Section 482 of the Code. Correctness and legality of the order framing charge is able to be questioned under Section 397 of the Code. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has filed Crl.R.P.No.1414 of 2017 challenging the correctness and legality of the charge also. The power invested in the High Court by Section 482 of the Code is an inherent one and the purpose is to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. When a statutory remedy is available, one cannot be allowed in routine to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

6. In Priyanka Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 978] the Apex Court held that persons are to be protected against vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution, and from unnecessarily being put through the rigours of an eventual trial. The Apex Court in Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 2024 SC 90] held that the protection against vexatious and unwanted prosecution and from being unnecessarily dragged through a trial by melting a criminal proceeding into oblivion in the deserving cases is a duty cast on the High Courts.

7. Here, the contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to get protection of Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act. Also, he contends that Annexure A2 order was issued in a quasi-judicial proceedings and even if the order is wrong, the same shall not be an offence in view