Quasi-Judicial Orders Cannot Be Criminalised: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Against Executive Officer For Staying Mutation Pending Civil Suit

“Passing Stay Order in Mutation Proceedings Is Within Quasi-Judicial Power — Protected Under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985”, In a landmark decision reinforcing the independence of quasi-judicial officers, the Patna High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a municipal executive officer for passing a stay order in mutation proceedings. The Court emphatically held that such judicial or quasi-judicial orders, passed bona fide in the course of duty, are protected under Sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and cannot be made a basis for launching criminal prosecution.

Justice Sandeep Kumar, invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the FIR, charge-sheet, and the sanction order dated 28.12.2020 issued under Section 197 CrPC, observing that continuing prosecution based solely on a quasi-judicial stay order would be a “malafide and oppressive abuse of process of law”.

"Protection under Judges (Protection) Act extends to Executive Officers acting judicially"

The petitioner, S. Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar, was then posted as Executive Officer at Bankipur Circle of the Patna Municipal Corporation. In that capacity, he passed an order on 27.06.2013 staying the mutation proceedings in respect of a property at Rajendra Nagar, Patna, observing that a civil title suit (Title Suit No. 507/2011) involving the same property was pending and therefore, the revenue court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate title.

Subsequently, a FIR was lodged in 2014 (Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 238 of 2014) alleging that the stay order was passed in collusion with private parties to favour one Kumar Gyanendra, whose mutation had already been effected back in 2005, long before the petitioner’s posting. The FIR accused the petitioner and others of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, triggering a full-blown criminal investigation and a cryptic sanction order under Section 197 CrPC issued by the Bihar Law Department in 2020.

Challenging the FIR, charge-sheet and sanction order, the petitioner invoked Sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, asserting that he had acted within the scope of his quasi-judicial duties.

The High Court accepted this submission in totality, holding that:

“The order of stay passed by the petitioner while discharging his official duties as the Executive Officer… cannot form the sole basis for initiating criminal prosecution.” [Para 27]

"Mutation Disputes Are Civil in Nature — Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused to Harass Public Servants"

The Court noted that the dispute was essentially one of property title, already sub judice in a civil court, and thus squarely within the domain of civil remedies. The petitioner’s action of staying mutation proceedings pending outcome of the civil suit was not only within his power but also appropriate in law.

Justice Kumar stressed:

“A bald statement that the order of stay passed by the petitioner being in favour of one of the parties… would not suffice to initiate a criminal prosecution.” [Para 31]

“The criminal prosecution launched solely for passing an order of stay by the petitioner while discharging his duties… would squarely amount to malafide prosecution.” [Para 31]

“Any Person Empowered to Deliver Judgment is a Judge”: Wide Interpretation of Section 2, Judges (Protection) Act

A pivotal point in the ruling was the recognition that municipal and revenue officers, while exercising adjudicatory powers in mutation proceedings, fall within the definition of “Judge” under Section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

Quoting precedents from the Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, the Court held:

“To fall within the category of a ‘Judge,’ it is not necessary that a person be formally designated as such… Any person who renders such a determinative judgment in legal proceedings would be deemed to be a Judge.” [Para 25]

Relying on judgments such as Rajkumar Tamboli v. State of Chhattisgarh and Meena Mehra v. Lokayukt Organization, the Court reaffirmed that quasi-judicial officers must be shielded from frivolous criminal actions stemming from their official orders.

“Sanction Order Totally Cryptic and Non-Speaking” — Quashed for Non-Application of Mind

A key component of the Court’s decision was the invalidity of the sanction order dated 28.12.2020 under Section 197 CrPC. The Court noted that the order was mechanical, lacked any discussion of the statutory protections available to the petitioner, and failed to disclose application of mind.

Justice Kumar quoted the Supreme Court’s recent verdict in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511), which emphasised:

“Sanction is a solemn act… not an idle formality… The sanctioning authority must apply its independent mind based on material and evidence, not merely echo allegations.” [Para 29]

Applying this principle, the Court held:

“The sanction order is totally silent as to the circumstances under which the protection afforded to the petitioner… are required to be stripped.” [Para 32]

“Therefore, the impugned order of sanction suffers from clear non-application of mind and cannot be sustained.” [Para 32]

“Remedy Against Erroneous Judicial Order Lies in Appeal — Not Criminal Prosecution”

Reiterating that even a wrong order passed in quasi-judicial capacity does not attract criminal liability, the Court observed:

“If the parties… were aggrieved by the order of stay… they could have availed remedies under the law… The wrong, if any, could have been corrected by the appellate authority.” [Para 31]

“May be that he has mistaken or grossly mistaken, yet he acted judicially and for that, no action shall lie against him.” [Citing Rajeev Jain, MP High Court – Para 29]

The ruling firmly established that criminal prosecution cannot be a substitute for appellate correction in administrative or quasi-judicial matters.

The Patna High Court’s judgment is a decisive affirmation of the protection granted to quasi-judicial officers under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and the procedural safeguards of Section 197 CrPC. By quashing the FIR, charge-sheet, and sanction order against a public servant who acted within his legal authority, the Court has drawn a strong line against the misuse of criminal law to settle property disputes or harass officers discharging adjudicatory functions.

This judgment serves not just as relief for the petitioner, but as a wider institutional safeguard preserving the independence of quasi-judicial administration.

Date of Decision: January 21, 2026

Case Title: Mr. S. Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Milan Kumar Sudhakar