1989 Supreme(Gau) 85
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
S.N.Phukan, J.
Md.Syed Alauddin Mia -Appellant
Versus
Sarungbam Ibobi Singh -Respondent
First Appeal No. 3 (A) of 1974
Decided On : 23-05-1989
M.Charugopal Singh, N.Pramod Chandra Singh
In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution, malice on the part of the defendant, and damages suffered as a result of the prosecution.
Headnote:
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - SECTION 379 I.P.C. - SUIT FOR DAMAGES - INGREDIENTS - ABSENCE OF REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE - MALICE - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a lessee of a lime stone quarry, filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the defendant, a House Station Master, alleging that the defendant had filed a false First Information Report (FIR) against him and his laborer, resulting in their conviction under section 379 IPC. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant acted with malice and without reasonable and probable cause.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the essential ingredients of malicious prosecution, namely, absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice on the part of the defendant. The court found that the defendant had acted in good faith and in discharge of his official duties, and that there was no evidence of malice or improper motive. The court also found that the plaintiff had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish the absence of reasonable and probable cause.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant acted with malice in filing the FIR and prosecuting the plaintiff? 2. Whether there was an absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution? 3. Whether the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the prosecution?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the essential ingredients of malicious prosecution, namely, absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice on the part of the defendant. The court found that the defendant had acted in good faith and in discharge of his official duties, and that there was no evidence of malice or improper motive. The court also found that the plaintiff had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish the absence of reasonable and probable cause.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for malicious prosecution.
2. Defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement wherein he has denied all the allegations and has pleaded that in spite of the orders promulgated under section 144 Cr. P. C. the plaintiff extracted and removed lime stone from the disputed area. He has further pleaded that in good faith and in discharge of his official duties as Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station he filed the F. I. R., investigated the case and found a case submitted the charge sheet. He has pleaded absence of malice and has stated that he had reasonable ground for believing that the accused persons committed the offence of theft. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have supported the case of the defendant No. 1.
3. The learned trial Court framed the following 12 issues :
1. Whether the plaintiff constructed 'KILN' where the lime stones were burnt near "Ngakralok" stream about 3/4th of a mile away from ''Kangkhanyanbi" lime stone quarry f
2. Whether the plaintiff burnt at the kiln the lime stone extracted from "Kangkhanyaobi" lime stone quarry ?
3. Whether the disputed land in Criminal Case No. 39 of 1958 under section 144 Cr. P. C. before A. D. M. was within the “Soubom" quarry of Kangkhanyanbi quarry f
4. Whether the lime stones and slacked powders seized by t