[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Deputy Superintendent Of Police Vacb vs M P Sudhakaran on 27 January, 2026
2026:KER:6437
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2022 IN CRMP
572/2016 IN CC NO.12 OF 2013 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VACB
THRISSUR UNIT,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SRI.RAJESH.A, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
SMT.REKHA.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 3:
1 M P SUDHAKARAN
FORMER SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ,KODUNGALLUR,
LAND TRIBUNAL, KODUNGALLUR, PIN - 680664
2 DHARMAPALAN
PARANKUMALAVEETTIL, VIYYUR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680009
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.U.HARIKRISHNA
SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 27.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6437
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
2
CR
ORDER
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2026
This criminal revision petition has been filed under
Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, by the prosecution, challenging order dated
09.12.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.572/2016 in C.C.No.12/2013 on the
files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,
Thrissur, whereby the learned Special Judge discharged
accused Nos.1 to 3 in the above case.
2. Though notice was served upon the
respondents 1 and 2, the 1st respondent appeared through
counsel. The notice issued to the 2nd respondent by registered
post was returned with endorsement "unclaimed". Thereafter,
notice was served upon the 2nd respondent through the Station
House Officer concerned, and a memo to that effect also has
been filed. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor as
well as the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
2026:KER:6437
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission
of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as 'PC Act, 1988' for short) as well as under Sections 468,
471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as 'IPC' for short) by accused Nos.1 to 3.
4. According to the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, even though the finding of the Special Court
granting protection to the 1st accused under the provisions of
the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Judges (Protection) Act' for short), has force, the
discharge of the 3rd accused, who is a document writer
alleged to have forged and falsified the sale deed which led
to SM proceedings could not be spared from criminal
prosecution by way of discharge and the learned Special
Judge went wrong in finding otherwise to discharge him.
5. The learned counsel for the 1 st accused/1st
respondent canvassed confirmation of the order in view of
2026:KER:6437
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
the protection given to the 1st accused, who was the Special
Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, who acted as a quasi-judicial body
while issuing the purchase certificate, which, according to the
prosecution, is a fraudulent one. In this connection, he has
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Remadevi
K.P. v. Dy.Superintendent of Police, reported in 2025 KHC
OnLine 827, wherein this Court while quashing the case
against the retired Deputy Collector, who served as the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode, on the finding that he
had exercised a quasi-judicial function in paragraph Nos.5, 6,
8, 9 and 10 observed as under:
"5. The learned Public Prosecutor placed a
constitution of Division Bench of the Apex Court in
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Meerut v. Lakshmi Chand
and Others reported in [1963 KHC 538], with reference
to paragraph Nos.11 and 13 and in paragraph No.13, the
Apex Court enlisted the essentials to be satisfied to
make a decision or an act judicial. The same as under:
13. To make a decision or an act judicial, the
following criteria must be satisfied:
2026:KER:6437
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
1) it is in substance a determination upon
investigations of a question by the application of
objective standards to facts found in the light of pre
existing legal rules;
2) it declares rights or imposes upon parties
obligation affecting their civil rights; and
3) that the investigation, is subject to certain
procedural attributes contemplating an opportunity
of presenting its case to a party, ascertainment of
facts by means of evidence if a dispute be on
questions of fact, and if the dispute be on question
of law on the presentation of legal argument, and a
decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on
findings based upon those questions of law and
fact.
In the said case, the Apex Court considered the order
passed by a Conciliation Officer in granting or refusing
permission to alter the terms of the employment of
workmen, at the instance of the employer and held that
the direction of the Conciliation Officer under Clause 29
of the order could not be said to be purely administrative.
6. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioner, when the essentials set out by the Apex
Court as stated above or gone through, it could not be
safely concluded that the petitioner exercised the power
2026:KER:6437
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
of quasi-judicial function so as to get protection. The
learned Public Prosecutor also placed decision of this
Court in Paul P.R. v. State of Kerala and Another
reported in [2013 (2) KHC 692], where this Court
addressed the question as to whether Land Acquisition
Officer discharging the functions of the District Collector
is entitled to claim protection under the Judges
(Protection) Act and held that he is not entitled to get the
benefit of Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
Similarly, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed
decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar P. v. State of
Kerala and Another, reported in [2021 KHC 5052],
where this Court held that the Tahsildar, who is
exercising the power of a Land Tribunal, is exercising
quasi-judicial power. Likewise, in another decision in
Santhosh Kumar G. v. State of Kerala reported in
[2021 KHC 393], this Court appraised the question as to
whether protection is available to the Kerala Value
Added Tax Assessment Authority and held in the
affirmative.
7. xxxx
8. Section 2 of the Judges (Protection)
Act, 1985 defines the term 'Judge' as follows:
"In this Act, "Judge" means not only
every person who is officially designated as a
2026:KER:6437
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
Judge, but also every person-
(a) who is empowered by law to give in
any legal proceeding a definitive judgment, or a
judgment which, if not appealed against, would
be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed
by some other authority, would be definitive; or
(b) who is one of a body of persons
which body of persons is empowered by law to
give such a judgment as is referred to in clause
(a)."
9. Section 3 of the Judges (Protection)
Act, 1985 further provides as under:
"Additional Protection to Judges
(1) Notwithstanding, anything
contained in any other law for the time being in
force and subject to the provision of subsection
(2), no court shall entertain or continue any civil
or criminal proceeding against any person who
is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word
committed, done or spoken by him when, or in
the course of acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official or judicial duty or
function.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or
affect in any manner, the power of the Central
Government or the State Government or the
Supreme Court of India or any High Court or
2026:KER:6437
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
any other authority under any law for the time
being in force to take such action (whether by
way of civil, criminal or department proceeding
or otherwise) against any person who is or was
a Judge."
10. Going by the Apex Court judgment in
Jaswant Sugar Mills's case (supra), in order to find out
whether an order passed by the authority of a quasi-
judicial nature may not be a nomenclature to the officer
to describe him as a Judge or a Judicial Officer and what
would require is whether, by the virtue of the said Act,
the officer declares rights or imposes obligation upon
parties affecting their civil rights and whether the
investigation, enquiry or the proceedings are subject to
certain procedural articles contemplating an opportunity
of presenting its case to a party ascertaining the facts by
means of evidence on the fact disputed and if the
dispute be on question of law on the presentation of
legal arguments and a decision resulting in the disposal
of the matter on findings based upon those questions of
law and fact. When an authority exercises a statutory
power with the above requirements, for which, challenge
by way of revision and appeal have been provided by
the same statute, the said order should not be relegated
2026:KER:6437
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
as an order either of executive or an administrative
nature, such order should be characterized as a quasi-
judicial order and the officer, who passed the order,
which is the core plank of this crime, thus, entitled to
protection under Section 2(a) r/w 3 of the Judges
(Protection) Act, 1985. Holding so, the FIR registered
against the petitioner herein who had exercised quasi-
judicial functions will not sustain in the eye of law."
6. According to the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent/1st accused, since issuance of the SM
proceedings is a quasi-judicial function exercised by the
accused as the Special Tahsildar, he is entitled to protection
in view of Sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act
and therefore, the discharge granted by the learned Special
Judge in favour of the 1st respondent/1st accused is liable to
be sustained.
7. On going through the decision extracted
herein above, in Sunil Kumar P. v. State of Kerala and
Another, reported in [2021 KHC 5052], where this Court has
2026:KER:6437
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
specifically held that the Tahsildar who has been exercising the
power of Land Tribunal is exercising quasi-judicial power. If so,
the order of the Special Court discharging the 1 st respondent/1st
accused giving protection under the Judges (Protection) Act is
only to be sustained though the meritorious consideration of the
discharge petition is found to be unsustainable.
8. As submitted by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, it is discernible from the order that the specific
allegation against the 2nd respondent / 3rd accused is that, being
a document writer, he had forged and falsified a sale deed
which led to issuance of purchase certificate. In such a case,
how the 2nd respondent/3rd accused was discharged from all the
offences cannot be justified from the order impugned. In this
matter, it is discernible that apart from the offences under the
PC Act, 1988, the prosecution has a specific case that accused
Nos.1 to 3 had committed offences punishable under Sections
468, 471, 420 and 120B of IPC. Since the discharge of the 1 st
accused is found to be justifiable, no offences under the PC
2026:KER:6437
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
Act can be tried by the Special Judge as of now, where the 2 nd
accused is no more. However, when allegation that the 3 rd
accused forged a sale deed and used the same as genuine by
deceitful means to be discernible from the prosecution
materials prima facie, offences under Sections 468, 471, 420
and 120B of IPC would attract against the 3 rd accused, for
which trial is absolutely necessary. Now the question is which
court will try the case against the 3rd accused. Legal position in
this regard also is not in dispute. Once charge has been framed
by the Special Court, the trial shall be conducted before the
Special Court and if no charge is framed by the Special Court,
the trial shall be conducted by the competent Magistrate Court.
9. In view of the above, discharge of the 2nd
respondent /3rd accused by the learned Special Judge while
discharging all the accused is found to be unsustainable and
the said order is interfered and discharge given to the 2 nd
respondent/3rd accused is set aside.
2026:KER:6437
CRL.REV.PET NO. 713 OF 2025
10. In the result, this criminal revision petition is
allowed in part. The challenge against the discharge of the 1 st
respondent/1st accused is found to be meritless and
accordingly, the discharge of the 1st accused is found to be
sustainable.
11. At the same time, the order is interfered and
set aside insofar as the discharge granted to the 2nd respondent
/3rd accused is concerned, with direction to him to appear
before the Special Court concerned on 19.02.2026 positively.
On his appearance, or by securing his appearance if he fails to
appear as directed, the learned Special Judge is directed to
transmit the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trying the
2nd respondent/3rd accused for the offences under the IPC.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to
the Special Court forthwith for information and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
