Back
1977 Supreme(Cal) 385
High Court Of Calcutta
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
BIBHUTI BHUSAN CHAKRAVARTI - Appellant
Versus
TARUN GUPTA - Respondent
Suit 218 Of 1977
Decided On : 12/08/1977
AHIN CHOUDHURY, ANINDYA MITRA, SANKARDAS BANERJI
The cause of action for a suit for malicious prosecution arises when the charges against the plaintiff are quashed or the plaintiff is acquitted. Filing of an appeal does not suspend the limitation period. The prosecution proceeding terminates when the revision petition is dismissed and not on the discharge or acquittal.
Headnote:
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 74: Provides that a suit for compensation for malicious prosecution must be filed within one year from when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. The cause of action for a suit for malicious prosecution arises when the charges against the plaintiff are quashed or the plaintiff is acquitted. Filing of an appeal does not suspend the limitation period. Case law has established that the prosecution proceeding terminates when the revision petition is dismissed and not on the discharge or acquittal. The right to appeal to the Supreme Court is upon grant of leave by the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, as the Managing Director of the plaintiff company, filed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution against the defendant. The defendant had lodged a false complaint against the plaintiff, which was later quashed by the Patna High Court. The plaintiff claimed compensation for expenses incurred in the criminal proceedings, loss and damages resulting from the plaintiff being prevented from attending to his work, and damages for injury to reputation and humiliation. The defendant applied for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. The defendant argued that the suit was barred by lapse of time as the cause of action had arisen more than one year before the suit was filed. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act and case law on the issue of when the limitation period starts for a suit for malicious prosecution. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation as the cause of action had arisen when the charges against the plaintiff were quashed by the Patna High Court, and the suit was filed more than one year after that date. The court also considered the balance of convenience and held that it did not outweigh the plaintiff's right to choose the forum. The court revoked the leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
Ratio Decidendi:
Result: The suit for damages for malicious prosecution is barred by limitation as the cause of action had arisen more than one year before the suit was filed. The balance of convenience does not outweigh the plaintiff's right to choose the forum. The leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is revoked and the suit is dismissed.
( 1 ) BIBHUTI Bhusan Chakravati as Managing Director of the Superintendence Company of India Pvt. Ltd. and the Superintendence Company of India Pvt. Ltd. have instituted Suit No. 218 of 1977 on or about 1st April, 1977 in this Court against one Tarun Gupta residing at Mitralaya near Dhaneswar Temple P. O. and Dist. Dhanbad in the State of Bihar. The plaintiffs have alleged that the plaintiff No. 1 was the Managing Director of the plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff No. 2. In January, 1970, the defendant was employed by the plaintiff as the Manager of Dhanbad Division of the plaintiff No. 2 at a total remuneration of Rs. 795 per month and a service agreement was executed between the plaintiff No. 2 and defendant on 9th Jan. , 1970 at Calcutta. It is stated that the principal object of the agreement was to prevent the defendant from utilising the trade secrets to the advantage of the rivals of the plaintiffs to the detriment of the plaintiffs during the currency of the agreement. It is, further, alleged that on 13th Aug. , 1972 the defendant maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause lodged a false complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad against plaintiff No. 1. Bibhuti Bhusan Chakrabarty alleging offences under Sections 506 and 420 of the I. P. C. in the said complaint it had been alleged that the plaintiff No. 1 had cheated the defendant by dishonestly inducing him to sign the aforesaid agreement dated 9th Jan. , 1970. The summons of the said criminal proceedings initiated by the defendant, as aforesaid, was served on the plaintiff No. 1 at 46/c, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this High Court. The plaintiff No. 1 thereafter in pursuance of the summons appeared before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad on or about 7th Sept. , 1972 and thereafter on various dates when the case was taken up and heard and when witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and defence were examined. After hearing the witnesses, the trying Magistrate framed charges against the plaintiff No. 1 for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said proceedings, the plaintiff No. 1 moved the Patna High Court for revision. By an order dated 22nd Feb. , 1975 the High Court at Patna was pleased to quash the criminal proceedings. Against the said order of the Patna High Court, the defendant, the petitioner herein, sought to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on or about 25th Feb. , 1976 for leave to prefer an appeal from the said order and judgment of the Hon'ble High Court at Patna. The plaintiff had entered caveat under the Supreme Court Rules and the plaintiff No. 1 was served with the notice of application for leave to appeal on 14th Sept. , 1976. On or about 6th December, 1976 the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court against the order of the Hon'ble High Court at Patna. The present suit was instituted on 1st April. 1977 for damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiffs have claimed compensation for damages for Rupees 1,16,304. 20 as per particulars below:
(i ) Expenses incurred in connection, with the criminal
proceedings in Dhanbad Court case no. MP-83/72
Rs .
8,419. 90
(ii) Expenses incurred in Patna High Court Criminal
Miscellaneous Case No. 2486 of 1973
12,609. 10
(iii) Expenses incurred in the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Special Leave Application No. 903 of 1976
20,275. 20
(iv) Loss and damages resulting from the plaintiff
No. 1 being prevented from attending to his work by
reason of the criminal proceedings
25,000. 00
(v) Damages for injury to reputation and humiliation 50,000. 00 Total 1,16,304. 20
After obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent the plaintiffs have instituted this suit.
( 2 ) THIS application has been made by the defendant for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the ground of balance of convenien
