Quasi-Judicial Officers Aren’t Criminals For Passing Orders: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Against Executive Officer In Mutation Dispute

“Protection Under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 Squarely Applies” —  In a significant reaffirmation of judicial independence and procedural fairness, the Patna High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, including FIR, charge-sheet, and sanction for prosecution, against Shailesh Kumar, an Executive Officer of the Patna Municipal Corporation, accused of alleged collusion in a mutation dispute involving a residential property in Rajendra Nagar.

Justice Sandeep Kumar held that the actions of the petitioner were undertaken in discharge of quasi-judicial functions and are thus protected under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

“The criminal prosecution launched solely for passing an order of stay while discharging his duties in mutation proceedings would squarely amount to malafide prosecution,” the Court observed.

“No Criminality In Passing An Order”: Mutation Stay Cannot Be Turned Into Penal Offence

The case stemmed from a 2014 complaint filed by Milan Kumar Sudhakar, a power of attorney holder, who alleged fraudulent mutation of a property in favour of Kumar Gyanendra, claiming that he had falsely represented himself as the son of the original owner, Dr. Desh Gaurav Yadav.

While the initial complaint in 2012 targeted Gyanendra and his father, a subsequent complaint in 2014 brought in the petitioner, then Executive Officer, alleging that he stayed the mutation proceedings in collusion with the accused to favour them.

However, the Court found that the stay order was passed by the petitioner on 27.06.2013 — in his official capacity — after noting that a title suit concerning the same property was pending before a civil court. The order was appealable, and indeed, an appeal had been filed.

“The petitioner had passed the stay order in exercise of his quasi-judicial authority... merely passing such an order could not lead to initiation of criminal proceedings,” the Court reasoned.

“Protection For Judges Is Not Just For Judges In Robes”: Quasi-Judicial Officers Covered Too

The Court delved into the scope of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, which protects not only designated judges but also those empowered by law to deliver definitive judgments, including officers like Executive Officers in municipal bodies handling mutation cases.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020), Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta (2024), and Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025), as well as decisions from the Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh High Courts, the bench noted:

“To fall within the category of a ‘Judge’, it is not necessary that a person be formally designated as such. Any person legally empowered to render a definitive judgment in a legal proceeding qualifies.”

Thus, the petitioner, acting in his quasi-judicial capacity, was fully entitled to protection under Section 3 of the 1985 Act, and no criminal prosecution could be initiated unless there was malice, corruption, or extraneous motives — none of which were present in this case.

“Sanction Order Passed Without Any Application Of Mind”: High Court Tears Into Government's Approval

The sanction for prosecution, granted by the Law Department of Bihar on 28.12.2020, was also declared invalid. The Court found the order cryptic, non-speaking, and devoid of reasoning — a clear instance of non-application of mind.

“The sanctioning authority made no reference to why the statutory protection available to the petitioner should be withdrawn. It failed to consider material and legal safeguards,” the Court said, quoting the Supreme Court’s guidance in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu.

The Court emphasized that sanction for prosecution is not a mere formality — it must reflect “a sound objective assessment”, not be based on vague references to a case diary or allegations.

“Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be A Tool To Settle Property Disputes”

The Court also flagged the civil nature of the underlying dispute, noting that it related to title and mutation of immovable property, and the present proceedings appeared to be a way to target the officer who passed an unfavourable order.

“A bald statement that the stay order was in favour of one of the parties does not suffice to initiate criminal prosecution,” the Court said.

Since the mutation was originally carried out in 2005, years before the petitioner took charge, and the order passed by him was procedural and legal, the High Court found no grounds for prosecution.

Judicial Immunity Applies Beyond Courts

The Patna High Court’s ruling sends a strong message — judicial and quasi-judicial officers cannot be dragged into criminal cases for decisions taken in good faith. The ruling reinforces that executive functionaries acting as adjudicators must be shielded from frivolous and retaliatory legal actions.

“Protection under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 is meant to ensure officers are free in thought and independent in judgment,” the Court noted, quoting Lord Denning.

Date of Judgment: 21 January 2026