The judgment established that the proof of the four elements required for a tort of malicious prosecution cannot be adduced at the stage of an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, and highlighted the need for the plaintiff to disclose the ulterior reason or purpose for which the defendant prosecuted him.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These are two revision petitions filed challenging orders dated 15th January, 2021 passed by the Id. ADJ, Dwarka District Courts, New Delhi, by which the applications filed by the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC have been dismissed by the Trial Court.

3. Disputes arose between the parties who are closely related to each other, which have led to criminal complaints and filing of suits. The Petitioner herein i.e., Mrs. Kiran Madan is the wife of Mr. Vipin Madan, who is the cousin (Maasi's son) of Mr. Ravi Manchanda i.e., the Respondent in C.R.P. 47/2021. Mr. Dishant Manchanda is the son of Mr. Ravi Manchanda i.e., the Respondent in C.R.P. 37/2021. Disputes erupted between the Madans and the Manchandas, who were residing in the same building, owing to various issues. One of the disputes took an ugly turn, leading to the lodging of an FIR by Mrs. Kiran Madan against Mr. Ravi Manchanda and Mr. Dishant Manchanda under Sections 354, 509 and 34 of the IPC. The allegations made in the FIR were that the Respondents had made lewd remarks against her and had taken her photographs etc. Pursuant to the said FIR, the Respondents were arrested by the Police and charges were framed against them.

4. Vide final judgment dated 20th May, 2017, the Metropolitan Magistrate in the Manila Court dealing with the said FIR acquitted both the Respondents. The findings of the Court were that the basic ingredients of the offences were not made out. In fact, the Court holds that no photographs were produced to buttress the allegations made in the FIR. Post the said acquittal, the Respondents filed two suits before the Trial Court seeking damages for malicious prosecution. In the said suits, Mrs. Kiran Madan, has filed applications seeking rejection of the plaints under Order VII Rule 11. The case of the Petitioner is that the basic ingredients of malicious prosecution, as laid down by this Court in Trilok Chand Bansal vs. Bharat Bhushan Bansal [CS (OS) 470/2016, decided on 23rd March, 2017], have not been made out and thus, the suit is liable to be rejected for lack of cause of action. The Trial Court has dismissed the applications vide orders dated 15th January, 2021 by holding as under:

"11. From the bare perusal of the above said paras, it appears that the tort of malicious prosecution requires proof of four conditions as detailed in para no. 24 of the above said judgment and, furthermore, plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution has to necessarily disclose in the plaint the ulterior reason/purpose for which the defendant prosecuted him. In the present case, although the pleadings are laconic, however, the sum and substance of the pleadings of the plaintiff is to the effect that defendant has prosecuted the plaintiff with oblique motive just to frame him in a false criminal case.

12. In Trilok Chand Bansal (supra) the matter pertains to the prosecution of the plaintiff (therein) in a criminal complaint U/s 138 ofNIAct, which resulted into the acquittal of the plaintiff (therein), however, the plaintiff had not disclosed any such particular as to how the said cheques landed in the hand of the plaintiff (therein), and as to what motive the defendant (therein) was seeking to attain by prosecution of the plaintiff (therein). In that judgment the cheque was in possession of the defendant, however, defendant could not fulfill the other ingredients of Section 138 of NIAct, which resulted in the acquittal of plaintiff (therein). However, in the present case the plaintiff was prosecuted by way of lodging a FIR, which resulted into acquittal of the plaintiff and the averments of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the defendant has falsely implicated plaintiff in a criminal case to settled her score, as such, the ratio of the above judgment stands distinguished from the facts of the present case.

14. From the above discussion, at this stage it cannot be stated that all