The judgment establishes the interpretation of judicial duties under the Judges (Protection) Act and the limitations on prosecution after retirement under the pension rules.

Khem Chand Sharma, J.-Through this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner seeks to quash the first information report No. 90/1998 registered against him and others at Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation, Jaipur for offence under Sections 5 (1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 477-A read with Section 120-B IPC.

2. Petitioner Santu Lal Sharma, was serving as Assistant Settlement Officer in the settlement department. On the basis of the report submitted by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation on 25.07.1998 first information report No. 90/1998 for offence under Sections 5(1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Sections 467, 468, 471, 477-A read with 120-B IPC came to be registered against him and others regarding illegal transfer of certain Siwai Chak land belonging to the Government in the names of Gajveer Singh and Madan Lal, ignoring the orders issued by the Settlement Commissioner from time to time. The case as set out in the FIR was that the petitioner while posted as Assistant Settlement Officer, in collusion with Surajmal Gurjar, Amin and Ramavtar Sharma Inspector, transferred the Siwai Chak land comprising of old Khasra Nos. 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, new Khasra Nos. 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 52, 53, 55 and 89 measuring 6.68 hectare and Khasra Nos. 133 & 134 measuring 2.76 hectare situated in village Todi Ramjanipura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur in the khatedari of Gajveer Singh and Madan Lal respectively during the settlement year 1987. It was mentioned that during the settlement year 1987 a team of Shri Santu Lal Sharma, Assistant Settlement Officer, Ramawatar Sharma, Inspector and Suraj Mal Gurjar, Amin was constituted. During settlement, this team conducted settlement of village Ramjanipura and transferred the Siwai Chak land measuring 9.44 hectare comprising of Khasra Nos. 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 52, 53, 55, 89, 133, and 134 (total 16 Khasras) in the Khatedari of Gajveer Singh and Madan Lal (6.68 and 2.76 hectare respectively), opened mutation and also attested the same. It was mentioned that the petitioner Santu Lal opened mutation No. 12 of the land comprising of Khasra Nos. 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 52, 53, 55, 89, (in all 14 Khasras) measuring 6.68 hectares in the name of Gajveer Singh son of Bhanwar Singh Rajput and also opened mutation of the land comprising of Khasra Nos. 133, and 134 measuring 2.56 hactare in the name of Madan Lal son of Mangi Lal, Khati by adding additional page. It has also been mentioned that the paper on which the disputed mutation has been opened is different from the papers already exiting on the file. As per the complaint, another mutation No., 12 is also in the file but it was changed as 12/1. It is also alleged that the office of petitioner Santu Lal Sharma, Assistant Settlement Officer opened file No. 966/87 in the name of Gajveer Singh and Shri Madan Lal but the record is not available and the same was removed by the accused intentionally so that the mistake committed by them could not be detected. It is then mentioned in the report that the accused persons namely Shri Santu Lal Sharma, Assistant Settlement Officer, Shri Ramawatar Sharma Inspector and Shri Surajmal Gurjar, Amin hetched conspiracy with Gajveer Singh and Madan Lal and by misusing their official position transferred the land by manipulating the record and also attested the mutation thereby causing loss of crores of rupees to the Government. On the basis of the written report submitted by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation, FIR No. 90/98 for the above said offences has been registered against accused persons including the petitioner.

3. The FIR and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom are sought to be quashed on the following grounds by invoking inherent jurisdiction:-

4. The first ground of