The main legal point established in the judgment is the essential conditions for proving malicious prosecution, including lack of reasonable or probable cause, malicious intention, and damage to reputation or property.

1. Heard.

2. The applicant is aggrieved by an order dated 27.04.2006 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Mahasarnund (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 2-B of 2003 affinning the order dated 16.06.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 4-B of 2002 by Civil Judge Class-I, Saraipali granting compensation of Rs.10,000/- for malicious prosecution launched by the applicant against the respondents.

3. Brief facts are that on 02.11.90 the applicant herein lodged F.I.R. against the respondents regarding theft of crops from lands Kh. No. 36/2, 36/3 and 36/8 situated in village Chandibhona. Vide judgment dated 07.10.1998 passed by the Criminal Court, the respondents herein were acquitted while recording a clear finding that respondent No.1- Phulki Bai had sown the crops harvested by her and the said crops were also returned to Phulki Bai. It was also noticed that a civil suit relating to title was pending between the parties prior to lodging of the F.I.R. by the appellant.

4. The learned Civil Judge Class-I, Saraipali recorded a finding that the prosecution launched by the appellant herein was a malicious prosecution and awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents herein. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred Civil Appeal No. 2-B of 2003. Affirming the finding recorded by the lower Court, the learned Additional District Judge, Mahasamund dismissed the appeal.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the mere fact of acquittal in a criminal prosecution launched by the police does not ipso facto make the criminal prosecution malicious unless malice is established. Reliance was placed on Indra Bhan Singh Vs. Ram Milan, Wahid Vs. K.N Pathak, Kutubuddin Vs. Isharat Begum and others, Bharat Bhushan Vs. Chandra Mohan, Mewalal Vs. State of M.P and Smt. Sovarani Dutta Vs. Debabrat Dutta On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents while arguing in support of the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.04.2006 placed reliance on Ramsingh Vs. Gulabsingh.

6. Having heard the rival contentions and after perusing the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2-B of 2003, I am of the considered opinion that this Civil Revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. In an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff must prove:

1. That he was prosecuted by the defendant.

2. That the proceedings complained of terminated in favour of the plaintiff.

3. That the prosecution was instituted against him without any reasonable or probable cause.

4. That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of carrying the law into effect, but with an intention which was wrongful in point of fact.

5. That he has suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to the security of person, or to the security of his property.

8. It is an admitted fact that the respondents herein were prosecuted by the applicant herein upon a FIR lodged by the applicant with the police relating to theft of crops. It is also undisputed that in criminal prosecution the respondents herein were acquitted by the Criminal Court.

9. A finding was recorded by the Criminal Court that a Civil Suit based on title was already pending between the parties and that the evidence led before it clearly revealed that the crops harvested from the disputed lands were sown only by the respondent No. 1- Phulki Bai and were also returned to her.

10. The witnesses examined by the plaintiff Govind PW.3, Lakshman P.W.5, Ghansiram P.W. 4 and Bariha P.W.2 also testified in favour of Phulki Bai by depositing that the agricultural land belonged to the Jaikrishna, the husband of Phulki Bai and since Phulki Bai had sown the crops she had harvested the same. This evidence had remained totally unrebutted.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, essential conditions No.3 and 4 are also established beyond doubt that the prosecution launched by the applicant herein was not with the int