Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 Shields Quasi-Judicial Officers; Trial Court Must Consider S.3 Before Taking Cognizance: Karnataka High Court - 2025-05-10

Karnataka HC Sets Aside Defamation Proceedings Against Assistant Commissioner, Highlights Immunity Under Judges (Protection) Act

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an order by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC , Kundapura, which had directed the registration of a crime and issuance of process against an Assistant Commissioner for alleged defamation and insult. The High Court emphasized that the trial court failed to consider the provisions of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, which grants additional protection to individuals performing quasi-judicial functions.

The Court, while quashing the order dated December 7, 2015, remitted the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal, simultaneously expressing a hope that an apology from the Assistant Commissioner to the senior advocate involved would bring the matter to a rest.

Background of the Dispute

The case originated from a private complaint filed by a senior advocate (respondent) against the Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura (revision petitioner). The advocate, with nearly three decades of practice and a past president of the Kundapura Bar Association, alleged that during a revenue appeal hearing on July 27, 2015, the Assistant Commissioner, who was new to the post, behaved inappropriately.

According to the complaint, when the advocate rose to present oral arguments, the Assistant Commissioner stated, "You stop it, I have got no time to hear your oral Arguments, whatever you want to say, put it in writing." When the advocate pleaded for a few minutes, the officer allegedly became "erratic, and furious and shouted... 'No, No, get out from here'," and subsequently directed the court Dafedar to remove the advocate. The advocate, feeling threatened and humiliated in the presence of other lawyers and clients, left the court hall.

The advocate contended these actions amounted to defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), intentional insult under Section 504 IPC, and criminal intimidation (initially Section 506 IPC was also alleged).

Trial Court's Action

The learned Magistrate, after recording the advocate's sworn statement, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 499, 500, and 504 IPC. The trial court, by an order dated August 12, 2015, noted that prior sanction was not necessary to prosecute the Assistant Commissioner as the alleged acts were "beyond the scope of her official duty." Consequently, an order dated December 7, 2015, directed the registration of the crime (C.C.No.4417/2015) and issuance of process. This order was challenged in the present revision petition.

Arguments Before the High Court

For the Petitioner (Assistant Commissioner): Learned Senior Counsel Sri H.S.Chandramouli argued that the Trial Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without considering Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. He contended that this Act provides "additional protection" to judges and those acting judicially, beyond what is offered by Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) concerning sanction for prosecuting public servants. He cited High Court of Karnataka v/s C.M.Manjunath (ILR 2021 KAR 357), which detailed that Section 3 of the 1985 Act does not require "good faith" for protection, unlike other provisions. The counsel asserted that the Assistant Commissioner, while hearing a revenue appeal, was discharging quasi-judicial functions and thus fell under the definition of "Judge" in Section 2 of the 1985 Act.

For the Respondent (Advocate): Learned counsel Sri K.Prasanna Shetty vehemently argued that the question of valid sanction should be considered at the final hearing, not as a preliminary issue. He relied on several judgments, including P.K.Pradhan v. The State of Sikkim (AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2547), to submit that if an act is beyond the discharge of official duty, the matter can proceed without sanction, with the question kept open.

High Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously examined the records and legal precedents. It observed that the core issue was the applicability of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

Petitioner as "Judge" under the Act: The Court noted:

"The facts of the case would depict that the revision petitioner as on the date of the incident was discharging the quasi judicial function. Therefore, she could be treated as a Judge, as per definition of the word 'Judge' found in Section 2 of the said Act."

Overriding Nature of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: The High Court highlighted the significance of Section 3 of the Act, which begins with a non-obstante clause ("Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law...").

"Therefore, in the light of the special enactment more so Section 3 of the said Act commences with a non-obstante clause, even assuming that the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was not necessary... the respondent cannot and should not support the impugned order as the Trial Magistrate failed to understand the required sanction in view of the Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985."

The Court further stated:

"In other words, the revision petitioner herein had double insulation whereby the Trial Magistrate should have been very slow in accepting the case of the revision petitioner before taking cognizance and registering the criminal case against the revision petitioner."

The failure of the Trial Magistrate to consider this special enactment was deemed an "improper exercising of the jurisdiction," warranting interference.

Observation on Merits of Allegations: While the decision primarily rested on the protective statute, the High Court also observed regarding the incident itself:

"At the most, the incident can be construed as heated exchange of words between the Lawyer(respondent) and the Presiding Officer. Therefore, per se from looking into the words uttered by the revision petitioner, there are no ingredients which would attract the offences under Sections 499, 500, 504 and 506 of IPC."

The Path to Resolution

Considering the passage of time and the respondent advocate being in his early 70s, the High Court found that remitting the case for obtaining necessary sanction would be a "futile exercise." Instead, it suggested a more conciliatory approach:

"As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that directing the revision petitioner to send an apology letter to the respondent who is a Senior member of the Bar at Kundapura and if wisdom prevails on the respondent, matter could be put at rest."

Final Order and Its Significance

The High Court passed the following order:

1. The impugned order taking cognizance and directing criminal case registration against the revision petitioner was set aside.

2. The matter was remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

3. The Court expressed hope that an apology letter from the petitioner to the respondent would resolve the dispute.

This judgment underscores the robust protection afforded to individuals performing judicial and quasi-judicial duties under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. It serves as a reminder to lower courts to diligently consider this special legislation before initiating criminal proceedings against such officers for acts or words done in the purported discharge of their duties.