Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. P. RAJKHOWA
SOVA RANI DUTTA - Appellant
Versus
DEBABRATA DUTTA - Respondent
S. A. 401 Of 1985
Decided On : 08/10/1989
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - MALICE - WANT OF PROBABLE CAUSE - TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN FAVOUR OF PLAINTIFF - DAMAGE - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a teacher, filed a suit against the defendant for damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant had lodged a false FIR against the plaintiff and his sister, alleging theft of an earring. The plaintiff was arrested and detained in police custody for a night. The police submitted a final report stating that the complaint was false and prayed for permission to prosecute the defendant under Sections 182/211, IPC. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate discharged the plaintiff and his sister and ordered the prosecution of the defendant under Sections 182/211, IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing the fact that the defendant had maliciously prosecuted him without any just and reasonable cause. The court found that the defendant had filed the FIR with the intention of setting the law in motion and that the subsequent arrest and detention of the plaintiff were a result of the defendant's actions. The court also found that the defendant had acted out of malice, as there was no evidence to support her claim that the plaintiff had snatched her earring.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant had put the law into motion by filing the FIR. 2. Whether malice had been proved by the plaintiff. 3. Whether it could be held that just because the criminal case was filed, it is to be held that the defendant filed the FIR maliciously. 4. Whether just because civil disputes are pending between the parties, it is sufficient to hold that the defendant filed the criminal case maliciously.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defendant had put the law into motion by filing the FIR, as the police had taken prompt action and arrested the plaintiff and his sister based on the FIR. The court relied on the definition of 'prosecution' in malicious prosecution cases, which includes the setting in motion of the law through a constituted authority, even if the proceedings do not reach a stage where the Magistrate could take formal cognizance. 2. The court held that malice had been proved by the plaintiff, as the defendant had filed the FIR knowing that it was false and with the intention of humiliating and harassing the plaintiff. The court also considered the fact that there was a long-standing feud between the parties, which supported the inference of malice. 3. The court held that it could not be held that just because the criminal case was filed, it is to be held that the defendant filed the FIR maliciously. The court noted that the test is whether the defendant was actively instrumental in putting the criminal law into force, and not whether the proceedings reached a stage where the Magistrate could take cognizance. 4. The court held that just because civil disputes are pending between the parties, it is not sufficient to hold that the defendant filed the criminal case maliciously. The court noted that the defendant had not provided any evidence to support her claim that the criminal case was filed out of malice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with modification in the quantum of damage, which was reduced from Rs. 1,604 to Rs. 500.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-11-84 passed by Sri S. Seal, Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Money Appeal No. 10 of 1980 modifying the decree dated 16/09/1980 passed by Sri B. N. Chandra, Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Money Suit No. 8 of 1977.
( 2 ) PLAINTIFF Debabrata Dutta, filed Money Suit No. 8 of 1977 against the defendant Smt. Sovarani Dutta claiming damages for malicious prosecution valued at Rs. 104. 00. His case is that on 23-10-76, at 18. 10 hours the defendant lodged a First Information Report in the District of Hooghly on an willful false charge of theft of ear-ring from the person of the defendant against the plaintiff and her sister Smt. Biva Bati Dutta. The defendant knew the statements made in her First Information Report to be completely false and she maliciously made those statements before the police to implicate the plaintiff and her sister in a false criminal case and to defame and injure the plaintiff and to satisfy the defendant's grudge on the plaintiff. In pursuance of the said false information, the police arrested the plaintiff and his sister and detained them in hazat on 23-10-76. The plaintiff and his sister were taken to the thana and the people of the locality looked on them as object of ridicule. The plaintiff and his sister were detained in the police hazat from II p. m. (night) on 23-10-76 up to 11. 30 a. m. on 24-10-76 the plaintiff was brought to the hazat of the Sub-Divisional Officer's Court building with hand-cuff and rope tied around his waist in broad day light through public road and again on the same day the plaintiff was brought from the S. D. O. 's Court building before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore with hand-cuff and rope tied around his waist and the plaintiff and his sister were bailed on P. R. Bonds. On the basis of the said false First Information Report, a case was registered at the police station, P. S. Case being No. 17 dated 23-10-76 and the same was converted as G. R. Case No. 659 of 1976 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandernagore (Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore ). The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate ordered for filing investigation report on 10-1-77. However, police could complete the investigation before that date and on 21-12-76 submitted investigation report to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore after investigating the charge of offence against the accused, that is, the plaintiff and his sister. While submitting the final report, the Investing Officer stated that the complaint by the defendant was false and so the Investigating Officer prayed in the final report for permission to prosecute the plaintiff/ defendant under Ss. 182/ 211, I. P. C. and also prayed for discharging the accused. The plaintiff was mishandled by the police and due to the said agony and sudden shock for the false arrest and indictment made by the defendant, the plaintiff swooned in the premises of the thana hazat on 23-10-76. On the basis of the final report submitted by the police, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 10-1-77, discharged the accused persons and ordered to prosecute the complainant (i. e. , the defendant) under Ss. 182/ 211, I. P. C. The plaintiff further avers that he is a man of reputation and that his academic career is brilliant all through and at present he is a permanent teacher of Durga Chandra Rakshit Banga Vidyalaya, Chandernagore. The defendant acted maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause and in consequence of the prosecution launched by the defendant, he had suffered pain in the body and mind and was prevented from transacting his business and was injured in his credit. The plaintiff was also defamed by the malicious act of the defendant. The plaintiff had to incur expenses of Rs. 104. 00 in obtaining his release from the hazat and defending himself in that
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
