Back
1991 Supreme(Del) 475
High Court Of Delhi
R.K.SONI - Appellant
Versus
S.SINGHARA SINGH - Respondent
Suit 77 of 1987
Decided On : 08/21/1991
BHARAT INDER SINGH
Malicious prosecution requires proof of prosecution by the defendant, favorable termination, lack of reasonable cause, and malice, justifying damages for reputational harm.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 323, 504, and 506 - Malicious prosecution - Plaintiff awarded damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- for being falsely accused in a criminal complaint that was quashed by the Additional Sessions Judge due to lack of evidence and malice on part of the defendant - The defendant failed to appear and defend the suit, leading to an ex parte decision. (Paras 1, 5, 6, and 7)
(B) Malicious Prosecution - To succeed, the plaintiff must prove prosecution by the defendant, favorable termination, lack of reasonable cause, and malice - The court found that the defendant acted with ulterior motives to pressure the plaintiff regarding a tenant dispute. (Paras 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a qualified contractor and social worker, was falsely accused by the defendant of criminal offenses to exert pressure regarding a tenant. The complaint was quashed, establishing the prosecution was malicious. (Paras 3 and 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendant maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff without reasonable cause, resulting in damage to the plaintiff's reputation. (Paras 5 and 6)
Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution was malicious and whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages. (Paras 5 and 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendant's actions were motivated by malice and lacked reasonable cause, justifying the award of damages for the plaintiff's suffering and humiliation. (Paras 6 and 7)
Result: Suit decreed for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest.
P. K. Bahri
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 as damages for malicious prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant. I may mention that the deft. in this suit was duly served and had put in appearance through Mr. N. B. Sinha, Advocate and had obtained adjournments for filing the w/s but finally on 8. 5. 1987, a last opportunity was granted to the deft. for filing the w/s subject to payment of Rs. 500. 00 as costs. It appears that the deft. had prepared the w/s and had supplied copy of the same to counsel for the pff. but the costs which were imposed vide order dated May 8, 1987, were not paid and the court on August 4, 1987, declined the request for another adjournment made on behalf of the deft. for paying the costs and for filing the w/s Counsel for the deft. had been appearing on some of the dates fixed for recording evidence but later on counsel had stopped appearing in the case and deft. has not taken any steps whatsoever for aside of order by which he was not setting granted any further time for filing w/s and for payment of costs. So, the defendant is ex parte in this suit.
2. The pff. has submitted his own affidavit and affidavits of Mohd. Suleman, Vidya Bhushan Misra, Smt. Shanta Parmar and Sudhir Jain in support of his case who have been also examined in court and deposed that they reiterate the contants of the said affidavits and prayed that the same may be read as part of their respective testimony.
3. Facts which have emerged out from the said affidavits and the documents proved are that the pff. is academically highly qualified as he holds a degree in Master of Arts in Psychology and has been carrying on business as building contractor being approved as A Class PWD Contractor in Punjab and Delhi and he and his wife and his son being regularly assessed to income-tax since 1955 and was also having a factory under the name and style of Multifaviour Actavaties at NOIDA and is owning 33, Bangalow Road, Delhi and is also a social worker and is also General Secretary of NOIDA Industrialists Association which is registered under the Indian Societies Act having registered office at H-25, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and Branch Office at NOIDA. According to the plaintiff, he, as General Secretary, has been helping in the redressal of grievances of the industrialists of NOIDA and he has been also practising as an industrial consultant under the name and style of R. K. Consultant Bureau. It is mentioned that Smt. Shanta Parmar is having a factory in the property bearing No. W-43, Sector XI, NOIDA, belonging to the deft. and she is inducted in the said premises by the deft. as tenant and she is carrying on manufacturing business. Deft. was keen to have Smt. Shanta Parmar vacate his premises and had approached the pff. for rendering some assistance in the matter whereas Smt. Shanta Parmar had been also approaching the pff. complaining about harassment she was suffering at the hands of the deft. Pff. is stated to have refused to render any help to the deft. in harassing his tenant Smt. Shanta Parmar. So, it is averred that the deft. was very much annoyed with the pff. and out of malice the deft. is stated to have lodged a false complaint u/ss. 147, 323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code in which he cited the pff. as one of the co-accused alongwith his son and tenant Smt. Shanta Parmar and some other persons. The averments made in the said complaint were that on May 31, 1985, the accused had held out threats to the deft. and had hurled filthy abuses and had beaten the deft. In the said complaint the Magistrate 1st. class of Ghaziabad had issued non-bailable warrants against the pff. which deft. tried to serve on the pff. with the aid of the police at the factory premises of plaintiff s wife and also at residential address of the pff. at Delhi but the pff. was not available, so was not arrested. The def. is stated to have then collected various persons at the said places and held out threats against the pff. and proclai
