Presiding Officers of Labour Courts entitled to judicial immunity under Judges (Protection) Act against criminal proceedings for bona fide judicial acts; High Court inherent powers post-revision limited to grave miscarriage of justice or process abuse.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for quashing and setting aside orders dated 31st July 2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge CBI Courts, Shimla (learned Revisional Court), and 21st February 2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Court No.6, (learned Trial Court). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the applicant filed an application before the learned Trial Court under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC),to lodge an FIR against the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Shimla. It was asserted that the learned Presiding Officer had unduly favoured the respondent No. 2 in her illegal act of publishing false and misleading advertisements. Learned Presiding Officer intentionally violated her official duty by wrongly dismissing the stay application filed by the applicant. Hence, it was prayed that an FIR be registered against the learned Presiding Officer.

3. The applicant adduced preliminary evidence in support of his application.

4. The learned Trial Court held that the Court cannot act as a post office and has to apply its mind before passing an order of investigation. The Magistrate can order the registration of the FIR only when the allegations made before him disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. A judicial or quasi-judicial authority cannot be held criminally responsible for the judgments passed by it. The allegations did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The applicant had a personal grudge against the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. Allowing such applications would undermine the dignity and integrity of the institution. Hence, the application was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1500/-

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant filed a revision, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge CBI Court, Shimla (learned Revisional Court). The learned Revisional Court held that the applicant was aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, which does not amount to the commission of any offence. The jurisdiction to register FIR under Section 175 (3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is discretionary and can be exercised when the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. No cognizable offence was disclosed, and the learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application. The applicant had an appropriate remedy to challenge the order before the competent forum. Judicial order does not become illegal by alleging it to be so, and only a competent authority can set aside such orders. The Magistrate had imposed the cost of Rs. 1500, which was not justified; hence, the order imposing the costs was set aside, and the revision was partly allowed.

6. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Courts below, the applicant has filed the present petition, asserting that the learned Courts below neglected their duty and responsibility towards society. The application was dismissed despite providing sufficient evidence for the commission of the offence. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court failed to properly look into the complaint filed before her, and she violated her official duty. She wro