Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
SH. DEEPAK RATHAUR & ANR. - Appellants
Versus
SH. SHASHI BHUSHAN LAL DASS - Respondent
RSA No. 1/2016
Decided On : 23-09-2016
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - DAMAGES - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 308/325/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the essential elements of malicious prosecution and the requirement to prove the initiation of criminal proceedings without reasonable and probable cause. The judgment highlighted the distinction between malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause, emphasizing the need for proof of both elements. The court also emphasized that the judgment of a criminal court is not binding in civil proceedings and cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence of malice or want of reasonable and probable cause.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking damages for malicious prosecution and defamation after being acquitted in a criminal case. The respondent/defendant had lodged an FIR against the appellants/plaintiffs, alleging assault. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the judgment, resulting in dismissal of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The first appellate court held that mere acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically prove malicious prosecution. It emphasized the need to prove that the criminal complaint was initiated without reasonable and probable cause, which the appellants/plaintiffs failed to establish. The court also highlighted that the judgment of the criminal court is not binding in civil proceedings and cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence of malice or want of reasonable and probable cause.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants/plaintiffs were entitled to damages for malicious prosecution and defamation. The court also addressed the relevance of the judgment of the criminal court in the civil proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to prove both malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause to succeed in a civil suit for malicious prosecution. It highlighted that the judgment of a criminal court is not binding in civil proceedings and cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence of malice or want of reasonable and probable cause.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and no substantial question of law arose.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 19.9.2015 by which the first appellate court has reversed the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 6.9.2014. Trial Court by its Judgment dated 6.9.2014 had decreed the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs filed for damages for malicious prosecution and defamation. The impugned judgment of the first appellate court therefore has resulted in dismissal of the suit filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution and defamation.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed the subject suit seeking damages on account of malicious prosecution and defamation as an FIR was lodged by the respondent/defendant against the appellants/plaintiffs on 27.4.2004. The incident of 27.04.2004 was of an assault by the appellants/ plaintiffs, and therefore, there was a registering of a State case under Sections 308/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The criminal case however resulted in acquittal of the appellants/plaintiffs in terms of the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 6.8.2007/Ex.PW1/7. The FIR in question was lodged by the respondent/defendant stating that he was sitting on a bench in the park when the accused Sh. Suraj Bhan and Sh. Satbir came and an altercation started between them. When the respondent/defendant tried to report the matter to the police, the accused persons went to their house and came again with a cricket wicket and an iron rod. When the respondent/defendant raised hue and cry Sh. Rajender Mishra and Sh. Nagender Mishra came to the spot to save him. In the meanwhile two other accused persons namely Sh. Kanshi Ram and his son Sh. Deepak ie appellants/plaintiffs came to the spot and the appellant no.2/plaintiff no.2/Sh. Kanshi Ram exhorted all other persons to kill the respondent/defendant. In the beating Sh. Rajender Mishra sustained injuries on his head and hand. Sh. Nagender Mishra and Sh. Rajender Mishra deposed in favour of the respondent/defendant in the criminal trial. Appellants/plaintiffs on being acquitted in terms of the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 6.8.2007 filed the subject suit pleading that the respondent/defendant had falsely filed the complaint/FIR and since the appellants/plaintiffs were acquitted by the criminal court by the Judgment dated 6.8.2007, hence, respondent/defendant was liable to pay damages for having falsely filed the complaint/FIR. The relevant averments of cause of action in the subject suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs are made in paras 6 to 10 of the plaint and these paras read as under:
“6. That on 27.4.2004, the defendant, had fight with other residents of the Village Singalpur, Delhi. Though, the plaintiffs has got no concern whatsoever with the said incident but the defendant, intentionally and deliberately for the reasons that the plaintiff no.2 had filed eviction petitions against the defendant, and the plaintiff no.1 has been pursuing the said eviction petitions in the court of law, falsely named both the plaintiffs in the said incident and falsely implicated the plaintiffs.
7. That on the complaint of the defendant, the plaintiffs had been implicated falsely in a criminal case F.I.R. No. 382/04, Under Section 308/325/34 of I.P.C., P.S. Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
8. That on the false F.I.R. which was registered on the basis of false complaint by the defendant, the plaintiffs have to appear before the court of law, take bail and face trial. In the said trial, the defendant made false evidence against the plaintiffs. After long drawn trial, as destined, both the plaintiffs were acquitted by the court of law.
9. That the defendant, made the false allegations against the plaintiffs intentionally, deliberately, knowingly, fully well of the consequences as the sole purpose of the defendant, have been to defame, demoral
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
