Bombay High Court Delivers Common Judgment in Multiple Applications Challenging Order Directing Investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Court Examined Whether Allegations of Illegal Encroachment and Official Regularization Orders Could Constitute Criminal Offences, Involving Issues of Civil Dispute and Protection of Public Servants.

Criminal miscellaneous applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by accused persons seeking to quash the order of the Magistrate directing police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code.

The applicants sought quashing of the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal, directing investigation into the complaint filed by respondent no.2 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The applicants contended that the criminal complaint filed by respondent no.2 was malafide, arose out of a civil dispute relating to regularization of alleged encroachments, and did not disclose any criminal offence. Additionally, applicant Ashok Chavan claimed protection under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 as his actions were performed in official capacity and his orders had not been declared illegal.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal, by order dated 25.8.2011 in Regular Criminal Case No.406/2011, rejected the request for direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against accused no.11 Joseph Imanuil and Prithviraj Chavan, but directed investigation against the remaining accused (1 to 10 and 12 to 17). The applicants before the High Court were among the accused named in that order.

Whether a public servant can be prosecuted for official acts without the orders being declared illegal. Whether a civil dispute can be converted into a criminal prosecution. Whether the complainant has locus standi to file the complaint. Whether the complaint is an abuse of process of law. Whether the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 grants immunity to the applicant.

[For Ashok Chavan] The orders passed by the applicant as Chief Minister for regularization of alleged encroachments were within his authority; they have not been declared illegal by any court. Therefore, no criminal prosecution can lie. [For Ashok Chavan] The dispute is essentially civil in nature regarding regularization of encroachments, and the criminal complaint is an abuse of process. [For Ashok Chavan] The complainant has no locus standi as he is neither a member of the housing colony nor personally cheated, and he is a habitual litigant. [For Ashok Chavan] Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 provides immunity from prosecution for acts done in official capacity. [For Ashok Chavan] The applicant is not obliged to disclose his defence at this stage. Reliance placed on decisions: Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, Rajib Ranjan v. R. Vijaykumar.

the orders made by the applicant, the then Chief Minister, for regularization of the alleged encroachments ... have not been declared to be illegal or invalid or without any authority by any Competent Court of law ... the dispute raised by respondent no.2 is nothing but a dispute of a civil nature ... there is nothing to give rise to the cause of action for initiating criminal action ... an abuse of process of law Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 provides for a clear protection from being prosecuted ...

Respondent no.2 filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal, under various sections of IPC against 18 accused, including the applicants. The CJM, by order dated 25.8.2011, rejected the request for direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against accused no.11 and Prithviraj Chavan, but directed investigation against the applicants (accused 1-10 and 12-17). The applicants then filed criminal applications before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, under inherent jurisdiction (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the said order. The applications were heard together, and interim orders were operating since 2011. Arguments were heard and judgment was reserved on 23.4.2015 and pronounced on 26.6.2015.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 120-B, 34, 420, 468, 447, 474, 466, 166
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 156(3), 482
• Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850: 1