JUDGMENT 1. -The petitioner Chandra Lal Bhakaria, Assistant Collector cum Executive Magistrate, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report No. 409/97 registered at Police Station Shahpura under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477, 477A, 167 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of instant petition are that a revenue suit was instituted by Mangal and Prabhu against Smt. Sanjya and Kane in the Court of Assistant Collector cum Executive Magistrate Shahpura on September 18, 1997. Along with the suit an application for seeking temporary injunction was also filed. The petitioner was the Presiding Officer of the said court at that time. The accusation against the petitioner is that he forged the judicial record. He did not pass the interim order initially any only issued notices and signed the order sheet but after meeting with the counsel for the applicant of interim application he changed the order sheet and issued interim order. Smt. Sanjya the opposite party of the revenue application instituted complaint on November 25, 1997 against the petitioner and three other persons in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahpura. Complaint was forwarded under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC. to the Police Station Shahpura where FIR No. 409/97 was registered on November 29, 1997 under Section 167, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and investigation commenced. 3. Mr. PK. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that Madho Lal Bunkar the clerk and Revenue Ahlamad of Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate Shahpura is the person who forged the signatures of the petitioner but he has become witness of the prosecution and his statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. has been recorded. Certified copy of the statement of Madho Lal Bunkar has been annexed with the petition which reveals that occurrence had taken place on September 20, 1997 whereas according to FIR it took place on September 19, 1997. The investigating officer was supplied with the photostat copy of the order sheet dated Sept. 19,1997 which does not bear the signature of the petitioner. So called signatures on the order sheet dated Sept. 19, 1997 are in the handwriting of Madho Lal Bunkar. The investigating officer was supplied with the photostat copy of the order sheet dated Sept. 19,1997 which does not bear the signature of the petitioner. So called signatures on the order sheet dated Sept. 19, 1997 are in the handwriting of Madho Lal Bunkar. It was further contended by the learned counsel that in case No. 145/97 the petitioner made a complaint of Shri Sita Ram Nausadar Advocate to the Bar Counsel of Rajasthan Jodhpur on August 30, 1997. Certified copy of the order sheet dated August 30, 1997 has been annexed with the petition. It was also urged by the learned counsel that Madho Lal Bunkar is the accused in criminal case FIR No. 122/95 under Section 323, 341 and 447 IPC. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Shahpura. In the said criminal case Madholal Bunkar is the client of Shri Sita Ram Nausadar Advocate. Certified copy of FIR No. 122/95 has been filed with the petition. Sum and substance of the arguments of learned counsel is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by Madho Lal Bunkar and Shri Sita Ram Nausadar in the instant criminal case and FIR as well as entire investigation deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar learned Senior Advocate appearing for the complainant Smt. Sanjya had drawn my attention towards the photostat copies of the order sheets and attempted to convince me that the petitioner had committed the offences and FIR and investigation of the criminal case should not be quashed. Reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Cr.L.J. 526) and Shambhoo Nath Mishra v. State of U.P ( AIR 1997 SC 2102 ) . 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the case diary. 6. The question that cropped up for consideration is whether FIR can be instituted against an Executive Magistrate, when acting judicially in the exercise of any power given to him by any law? 7. Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code provides thus- "77 Act of Judge when acting judicially-Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law." 8. Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'Judge' thus- "19. Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'Judge' thus- "19. Judge-The word 'Judge' denotes not only every person who is officially designated as Judge, but also every person- who is empowered by law to give in any legal proceedings, civil or criminal, 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 who is one of a body of persons to give a judgment." 9. The Assistant Collector cum Executive Magistrate Shahpura is a 'Judge' as defined in section 19 of the I.PC. Legal proceedings under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 may be instituted in his court and he is empowered by law to give a definitive judgment. His judgments may be called in question before the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue and also before the High Court. 10. Markby J. in Chunder Narain v. Brijo Bullab (14 B.L.R. 254) said : "The duties which he (a Magistrate) usually performs are of such a nature as to render it absolutely necessary for their due performance that he should have the protection. He has generally either to punish an officer or to vindicate the rights of a private individual and if were hampered by fear of the consequences which might arise from a mistaken conclusion, he could not have that independence of mind which is essential to the discharge of such functions as those. This protection is not confined to persons holding and exorcising a regular judicial office, but it extends to any person whose duty it is to adjudicate upon the rights or punish the misconduct of any given person, whatever from the proceedings may take or however informal they may be. This has been so held in England and I do not see any reason to doubt that the same would be held here." 11. Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code embraces that act complained of should be a judicial Act, done in good faith and in the belief that it was sanctioned by law. These two requisites are the necessary prerequisites for exoneration form criminal responsibility of all persons empowered to act under the direction of law. Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code embraces that act complained of should be a judicial Act, done in good faith and in the belief that it was sanctioned by law. These two requisites are the necessary prerequisites for exoneration form criminal responsibility of all persons empowered to act under the direction of law. In State of Maharashtra v. Yashwant Parash Ram Sawant (1977 Cr.L.J. 1477 (Bombay) it was held that "section 77 does give immunity to the accused and merely because some persons make some allegations against him, it cannot be held that he is liable for anything that he did in respect of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948." 12. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no Judge, Magistrate or public servant not removable save by or with the sanction of a State Government or the Central Government shall be prosecuted for any offence of which he is accused as such judge, magistrate or public servant without previous sanction of Government having power to order his removal. Such Government may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which the prosecution of such judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted and may specify the court before which the trial is to be held. The object of this provision is to prevent petty or vexatious prosecution. 13. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahpura, in whose court the complaint was filed by Smt. Sanjya against the petitioner before forwarding the complaint under section 156 (3) Cr PC. to the PS. Shahpura ought to have examined the provisions contained in Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 197 Cr.PC. No complaint could have been entertained against the petitioner without prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC. Thus the act of ACJM Shahpura in forwarding the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Shahpura wasv illegal and the entire structure of FIR No. 409/97 was constructed over the illegal foundation. The investigating agency cannot be armed with the power to adjudge the applicability of Section 77 Cr.P.C. 14. Thus the act of ACJM Shahpura in forwarding the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Shahpura wasv illegal and the entire structure of FIR No. 409/97 was constructed over the illegal foundation. The investigating agency cannot be armed with the power to adjudge the applicability of Section 77 Cr.P.C. 14. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that FIR may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. As already stated that in the case on hand, the FIR came to be registered violating the provisions of Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore to secure the ends of justice it deserves to be quashed. However, if the complainant thinks that the petitioner did not act in good faith, she may initiate proceedings for obtaining sanction under section 197 Cr.PC. 15. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons the FIR No. 409/97 registered at Police Station Shahpura on November 29, 1997 need be and is hereby quashed and set-aside.Petition allowed. *******