A Judge is protected from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done or words spoken in the discharge of official or judicial duty under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

V.S. Kokje, J.

1. This is a case filed by a Judicial Officer posted as Civil Judge Class II and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain against one Shivmohan Singh Parihar and his Advocate Shri Babulal Pandya. The application is for quashment of Proceedings initiated by Shivmohan Singh Parihar through Shri Babulal Pandya, Advocate against the applicant Judicial Officer, Shri Liladhar Baurasi, when this matter came up on 10-10-1991 in motion hearing, the Court was shocked to find that it was not a lone case but it was stated at the bar that several cases against Judicial Officers of Ujjain Sessions Division were Pending in the Courts of Ujjain in almost all of which Shivmohan Singh Parihar was the complainant and Shri Babulal Pandya was his lawyer. While admitting this case for hearing it was directed that a report be called from Sessions Judge, Ujjain about all the pending cases against Judicial Officers in his Judicial District along with record of the cases. In compliance, the Sessions Judge sent the records and report about the pending cases. It transpired that as many as 12 criminal complaints involving Judicial Officers in one way or the other were pending in the various Criminal Courts of Ujjain Sessions Division. There were 9 Transfer Applications also filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in respect of these cases. After perusal of the records it was thought fit to take suo motu cognizance of the matters and to issue notices to show cause against quashing of the proceedings and or taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the complainant and his lawyer. These cases were registered as M. Cr. Cs. No. 2590/91, 2584-91, 2588/91, 2593/91., 2579/91, 2581/91, 2577,91, 2585/91, 2586/91, 2578/91, and the cases relating to transfer Applications are M.Cr. Cs. No. 2596/91, 2594/91, 2592/91, 2591/91, 2589/91, 2587/91, 2583/91, 2582/92, and 2580/91.

2. All these cases were heard together after service of notice on the non-applicant. In some cases the reply has also been filed.

3. A perusal of the record of all these cases show that vague, general and baseless allegations have been made in the complaints and scandalous allegations have been made against the Presiding Judges of the Courts below. The question for consideration in all these cases is as to whether the proceedings deserve to be quashed, whether action under Contempt of Courts Act be taken against the Non-applicants and as to what action be taken against Shri Babulal Pandya Advocate appearing in these cases.

4. So far as the quashing of the proceedings is concerned it is settled law that the inharent powers of the Court can be used to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court as also to ethers wise secure the ends of justice:

(a) In Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I. 1986 (1) SCC 259. it was observed by the Supreme Court that addressing letters to the Advocate General and Passing them to persons not concerned amounted to abuse of the process of Court.

(b) In Vijay Pal Reddy v. State AIR 1278 SC 1590, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the inherent powers could be involved only when the facts alleged in the complaint, if they are accepted to the correct on their face value, do not make out an offence with which the accused is charged.

(c) In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre AIR 1988 SC 709, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed the test to be applied by the cases is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations made, prima-facie established the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration special features which appear in a Particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest or justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is to on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are