PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Sarjoo Prasad JJ.
Madan Mohan Singh
Versus
Bhirgunath Singh
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 262 of 1949 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 28, 1952
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - ELEMENTS - LODGING FALSE INFORMATION WITH POLICE - SUBSEQUENT ARREST AND REMAND - LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant lodged a false information with the police, leading to their arrest, remand, and imprisonment for 39 days. The defendant claimed he honestly believed the plaintiffs were involved in a dacoity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant had lodged false information at the police station, without reasonable and probable cause, and with malicious intent. The court held that the defendant was liable for damages for malicious prosecution.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant's actions constituted prosecution upon which an action for malicious prosecution could be based. 2. Whether the plaintiffs suffered imprisonment due to a ministerial act, barring an action for malicious prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defendant's actions amounted to prosecution, as he actively instigated the criminal law into force by lodging false information with the police, leading to the plaintiffs' arrest and remand. 2. The court distinguished between judicial and ministerial acts, holding that the plaintiffs' imprisonment resulted from a judicial act (remand order by the Magistrate) and not a ministerial act. Therefore, an action for malicious prosecution was maintainable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision awarding damages to the plaintiffs.
Ramaswami, J.
1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether upon the facts found the appellant is liable in law to pay damages for malicious prosecution.
2. The plaintiffs brought the suit alleging that on 13th April 1945 defendant No. 5 lodged first information report before the Sub-inspector of Hunterganj thana alleging that on the previous night a dacoity was committed in his house and a suit case containing ornaments and cash was looted. The defendant asserted that he identified the plaintiffs among the dacoits at the time the offence was being committed. The police commenced investigation of the case. On 14th April 1945 the house of the plaintiffs was searched but nothing incriminating was found. The plaintiffs were arrested by the police who applied for remand before the Magistrate. The plaintiffs were remanded by the Maigstrate and kept in imprisonment for 39 days. Plaintiffs declared that the appellant had lodged false information maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause. The main ground of defence was that defendant No. 5 lodged true information at the police station and that he honestly believed that the plaintiffs had taken part in the dacioty. Upon a consideration of the evidence the Munsif held that the defendant had lodged false information at the thana, that there was no reasonable and probable cause and that the appellant was actuated by malice. The Munsif accordingly granted a decree for damages to the extent of Rs. 500 in favour of the plaintiffs. The decree has been affirmed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ranchi in appeal.
3. The main question in the appeal is whether upon the facts found there was a prosecution of the respondents, upon which an action for malicious prosecution could be based.
4. Iti is necessary in this context to refer to the relevant provisions of the Criminal P. C. Sec.154 states:
"Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant."
Sec.157 provides: "If from information received or otherwise an officer in charge of a police station has reason tb suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Sec.156, to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report."
Sec.167(1) enacts: "Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Sec. 61, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer in charge of the police station..... .shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary ......and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate."
Sec.167(2) provides: "The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded..... .from time to time authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term no exceeding fifteen days in the whole."
If after the period of 15 days prescribed by this section the police wish to detain the accused in custody they can only proceed by forwarding the accused under Sec.170, to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of a case. The Magistrate may thereafter under Sec.344 remand the accused to custody if there are reasonable grounds for doing so. Sec.344 provides that
"If, from the absence of a witness, or any other reasonable cause, it becomes necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn any inquiry or trial, the Court may, if it thinks fit, by order in writing..... .postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody: provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to cus
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.