Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 379
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Maulik J. Shelat, J.
Naynaben Ramdas Sadhu & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Darji Bhikhalal Trikamlal – Respondents
R/Second Appeal No. 141 Of 2023 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 Of 2022
Decided On : 22-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Tort Law - Malicious Prosecution
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Malicious Prosecution - Claim for compensation - Essential requirements - A claimant must demonstrate that legal proceedings were maliciously instituted and that the claimant endured a trial or formal prosecution - Without evidence of formal prosecution or trial, a suit for damages for malicious prosecution is not maintainable. (Paras 3.3, 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a claim for damages seeking compensation for alleged malicious prosecution. The trial court initially granted a decree for compensation; however, the first appellate court reversed this decision, determining that no malicious prosecution had occurred because the criminal complaint in question was closed by the relevant authority without the claimant ever facing trial or receiving legal notice.
Findings of Court:
The first appellate court correctly determined that the essential elements of malicious prosecution were absent. Since the criminal complaint was dismissed based on an investigative report without any legal process being issued against the claimant, there was no factual basis to support the claim for compensation, and the joinder of a party who was not even a complainant was erroneous.
Issues: Whether the appellate court erred in setting aside the compensation award, and whether the finding regarding the absence of malicious prosecution constitutes a perverse finding warranting interference under the appellate jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the court is limited to substantial questions of law and cannot re-examine factual findings unless they are tainted by perversity or lack any evidentiary basis. The absence of a formal trial or prosecution process precludes a claim for damages based on malicious prosecution, and the lower court's decision reached after proper evaluation of the evidence remains sustainable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellant : Mr N K Majmudar
For the Respondent: HCLS Committee, Mr. Divyang A Ramani
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual and procedural history of the suit for malicious prosecution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant's contention that b-summary reports constitute conclusive evidence of malicious prosecution. (Para 4) |
| 3. limitations on high court jurisdiction in second appeals regarding findings of fact. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. necessity of establishing a substantial question of law for second appeal intervention. (Para 8) |
| 5. dismissal of the second appeal and disposal of pending applications. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
Maulik J. Shelat, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shivam Majmudar, learned advocate for Mr. N. K. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the applicants at length.
2. The present Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “CPC”) arising out of judgment and order dated 08.10.2022 passed by the 6th Additional District Court, Deesa, Banaskantha below Exh. 51 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2011, whereby the judgment and order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Deesa, Banaskantha in Special Civil Suit No. 353 of 2002 (Old Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 1998) came to be quashed and set aside.
2.1. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein-after will be referred to as per their original status in the suit. The appellants herein are legal representatives of original plaintiff; respondent herein is original defendant no. 2. The original defendant no. 1 - Jashiben died during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal and survived by the respondent herein.
3. The suit in question was filed by one Sadhu Ramdas Guru Prahladas (predecessor of present appellants) seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony, sorrow and defamation caused to him by the defendants due to malicious prosecution instituted by defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff. Since the Court concerned has not accepted the private criminal complaint filed against the original plaintiff, the suit in question came to be filed seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the defendants.
3.1. After hearing the parties and upon appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010, partly allowed the suit whereby directed defendants to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation along with a 6% from the date of suit till it realization.
3.2. The original defendants had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2011 before the District Court concerned. It appears that original plaintiff died during the pendency of said appeal, whereby the present appellants being his legal heirs/representatives were brought on record of the said appeal. As observed at the outset, the said appeal came to be allowed by the Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 08.10.2022.
3.3. The Appellate Court has, upon reappreciation of evidence and having noticed that there was no malicious prosecution launched by the defendant no. 1 against the original plaintiffs, set aside the order of compensation passed by the Trial Court. It has been observed that the private complaint dated 06.01.1997 being case No. 02 of 1997 filed by the defendant No.1 was not accepted by the concerned Criminal Court as the Criminal Enquiry No. 11 of 1997, appears to have been ordered in said private complaint, wherein the police appear to have submitted B-summary and same was accepted by the Court concerned. It has been also observed that no notice-summons was issued to the original plaintiff in the said private complaint. Accordingly, the Appellate Court was of the view that in absence of any enquiry initiated against the plaintiff, there was no question of plaintiff to file such suit seeking compensation as the plaintiff was unable to prove on record that there was malicious prosecution against him at the instance of original defendant no. 1 to malign his image in the society.
3.4. The Appellate Court has also categorically recorded that the defendant no.2 happens to be son of the defendant no. 1 though, not part of the a
