The main legal point established in the judgment is that to prove malicious prosecution, the prosecution must terminate in favor of the plaintiff, and it must be proved that the prosecution was malicious and without reasonable and probable cause.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) APPLICATION under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC states as under:-"1]. That the plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 50,00,000/- only on account of damages. In the said suit he has made scurrilous insinuation, malicious and vexatious allegations which have no iota of truth. 2]. That the matter is sub-judice in the court of MM, New Delhi in which charge sheet for one FCNR account has already been filed which was investigated by the Crime Branch for the offence u/s 420/467/468/471 r/w Section 120-B IPC. 3]. That the plaintiff has not come with clean hands. The suit is false, the defendant has reasonable and probable cause for filing of the FIR because huge amounts have been mis-appropriated by the plaintiff in connivance with others for which the investigation is being carried out by the CBI. 4]. That a written statement to the said case has been filed by the defendant. She relies upon the averments made in the written statement which clearly shows that no cause of action has arisen for filing of the suit. The further investigation is being carried out by the C. B. I as per orders of this hon'ble Court. The offence committed by the plaintiff are grave and serious and in order to put pressure on the defendant, so that she may not be able to pursue the legal remedy, this false and frivolous case has been made which is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has arisen. The plaint do not discloses any cause of action in the suit. 5]. That as there is no cause of action to file the suit, the same is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. "

( 2 ) PRAYER made is to dismiss the suit.

( 3 ) REPLY by the plaintiff reads as under:-"1]. That the contents of paragraph 1 of the application as stated is wrong and denied. It is denied that the plaintiff has made any scurrilous insinuation, malicious or vexatious allegations. The plaintiff has made truthful submissions. 2]. That the contents of paragraph 2 of the application as stated is wrong and denied. It is submitted that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit in question after the investigation carried out disclosed commission of no offense while the plaintiff was made to undergo imprisonment in jail for 65 days on account of baseless allegations made by the Defendant is in her complaint dated 11. 6. 2000. 3]. There is no paragraph 3. 4]. That the contents of paragraph 3 of the application is wrong and denied. The allegations are false, besides being vague. The investigations carried out do not disclose any misappropriation of funds by the plaintiff. These allegations are baseless and defamatory. The defendant is guilty of making defamatory allegations against the plaintiff time and again. 5]. That the contents of paragraph 5 of the application are wrong and denied. The submissions made in the written statement are wrong and they have been suitably replied by the plaintiff by filing a replication. As a matter of fact, after filing the written statement, the case of the plaintiff has further improved as the defendant by making reckless and baseless allegations against the plaintiff even before this Hon'ble Court by way of written statement has proved that she has abused the process of law and has indulged defamatory tactics against the plaintiff. There is no offence committed by the plaintiff as per the investigations being carried out during the last five years. It is denied that any pressure is being made by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has filed the suit in order to seek recourse to legitimate remedy under the law in view of the nefarious conduct of the defendant. 6]. That the contents of paragraph 6 of the application besides being wrong and denied are also vague and without any substance. "

( 4 ) SUIT seeks damages in sum of Rs. 50 lacs against the defendant. Basis pleaded is that Shri J. S. Premi, husband of the defendant was the cousin of the plaintiff. Being settled in United States of America he