High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
Gangadhar Padhy
Versus
Prem Singh
RFA No. 269 of 2013
Decided On : 15-01-2014
Malicious Prosecution - Damages - Indian Penal Code, Section 509 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for recovery of damages due to malicious prosecution and defamation by the respondent. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the appellant failed to prove malicious prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove that the prosecution was malicious and that the acquittal alone does not entitle the appellant to damages.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant could claim damages for malicious prosecution based solely on acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove that the proceedings were instituted without probable cause and from malicious motives. Acquittal alone does not establish malicious prosecution.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was burdened with costs of the appeal.
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 28th January, 2013 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) -I, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi of dismissal of Suit No.675/2010 (ID No.2403C031222010) filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent/defendant towards damages suffered by the appellant/plaintiff due to malicious prosecution and defamation of the appellant/plaintiff at the instance of the respondent/defendant.
2. Notice of the appeal and the application for condonation of 18 days delay in re-filing the same was issued. The counsel for the respondent/defendant appeared before this Court on 26th November, 2013 when the delay in re-filing the appeal was condoned and finding the learned ADJ to have dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff had not proved that prosecution was malicious and on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff was acquitted giving benefit of doubt, the appeal was admitted for hearing, the Trial Court record was requisitioned and the counsels asked to address arguments. However, both the counsels sought adjournment. Considering the nature of the appeal, it was not deemed expedient to allow it to burden the roster of this Court and accordingly, judgment was reserved giving liberty to the counsels to file written submissions within fifteen days. Though more than fifteen days have lapsed, neither counsel has bothered to file written submissions or to seek opportunity to address. The Trial Court file has been perused.
3. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading:
(i) that the appellant/plaintiff was introduced to the respondent/defendant by the uncle of the wife of the respondent/defendant;
(ii) that the appellant/plaintiff so also came in contact with the daughter of the respondent/defendant;
(iii) that the appellant/plaintiff developed intimacy with the daughter of the respondent/defendant and which converted into a love affair;
(iv) that the daughter of the respondent/defendant took the appellant/plaintiff to Bangalore where the father-in-law of the respondent/defendant used to reside;
(v) that the appellant/plaintiff with the daughter of the respondent/defendant also used to visit the shop at Mohan Singh Place of a friend of the appellant/plaintiff;
(vi) that the appellant/plaintiff and the daughter of the respondent/defendant planned to get married;
(vii) that the respondent/defendant and his wife were opposed to the said marriage and stopped the appellant/plaintiff from even visiting the colony of Golf Link, New Delhi in which the respondent/defendant and his daughter were residing and threatened the appellant/plaintiff;
(viii) that though the appellant/plaintiff stopped contacting the daughter of the respondent/defendant but the respondent/defendant fearing that his daughter may secretly marry the respondent/defendant, got a false complaint made in the name of his daughter to the Police Station, of the appellant/plaintiff having molested and having threatened to kidnap her;
(ix) that however the police on investigation did not find any merit in the complaint and no action was taken thereon;
(x) that the respondent/defendant then with the help of Special Commissioner of Delhi Police and an Indian Administrative Services (IAS) Officer filed a false, frivolous and concocted complaint against the appellant/plaintiff alleging that the appellant/plaintiff had written unsigned and signed letters to his daughter threatening her and also linking the appellant/plaintiff with a notorious terrorist and gangster;
(xi) that on the said complaint, the appellant/plaintiff was arrested and taken to the Police Station where he was given severe beating and abuses at the instance of the respondent/defendant and after being kept at the Police Station for one night was granted bail as the offence under Section 509 IPC is a bailable one;
(xii) that on the next date i.e.on 29th March, 1999, the
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.