Malicious prosecution requires proving malice and lack of reasonable cause. The court established the appellants acted without sufficient basis, resulting in damages awarded for mental anguish.

JUDGMENT :

M.W. CHANDWANI, J.

1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Nagpur whereby allowing Regular Civil Appeal Nos.478/2012 enhancing the amount of damages from Rs.1/- to Rs.3,00,000/- against the appellants for prosecuting respondent no.1 maliciously. Whereas, Regular Civil Appeal No.523 of 2012 filed by the appellants came to be dismissed.

2. The plaint depicts that respondent no.1 was a member of the Adiwasi Samaj Unnati Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Nagpur. He was elected as Secretary of the said society on 17.02.1980 and again on 03.01.1988, he was re-elected in a special general meeting. The society had a layout of 90 plots in Khasra Nos.52/2, 52/3 and 59 of Mouza Bhamti. Being authorized in the general meeting by resolution No.2 dated 26.10.1980, respondent no.1 as Secretary of the society, was receiving the amount from its member towards allotment of plots and handing over its possession to them. The plaint further reveals that the appellants, on 13.08.1988 lodged a false complaint to the Sonegaon Police Station, Nagpur alleging that respondent no.1 is neither the secretary nor a member of the society but still he illegally obtained an amount of Rs.64,648/- from the members of the society. The police registered an offence vide Crime No.148/1988 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 was arrested and was in police custody remand. Respondent no.1 was suspended from service. He was working as Professor in Punjabrao Krushi Vidyapeeth at that time. Upon filing of the charge-sheet, Regular Criminal Case No.101/1989 was initiated. The respondent no.1 filed an application for discharge before the learned J.M.F.C., Nagpur which came to be allowed by order dated 03.10.1989. The appellants attempted to file an appeal before the Sessions Court with an application for condonation of delay against the order of discharge. The same came to be dismissed. The appellants thereafter, by way of writ petition approached this Court but could not succeed.

3. It is alleged also in the plaint that in the investigation, respondent no.6 – Murlidhar Nimje gave a false statement to the police. Whereas, the appellants alongwith respondent nos.2 to 6 maliciously prosecuted respondent no.1 without a reasonable and probable cause, knowing that the allegations were false with the sole purpose of defaming respondent no.1 in the society. As a result of this, the image of respondent no.1 was maligned in the society and the same caused him mental agony and illness. Respondent no.1 claimed damages of Rs.9,00,000/- from the appellants and respondent nos.2 to 6. Original defendant nos.1 and 14 died during pendency of the trial and therefore, the suit came to be abated against them.

4. The appellants and respondent nos.2 to 6 filed a common written statement maintaining their stand that respondent no.1 was neither the Secretary nor a member of the society and the society never authorized him to obtain money from the members. He illegally collected the money from its members. Therefore, police report was rightly lodged against respondent no.1. They also took the defence that there was no malicious intent on the plot of the appellants and respondent nos.2 to 6 and therefore, they are not liable to pay any damages. The trial Court decreed the suit by granting damages of Rs.1/-.

5