IMPORTANT POINT
To succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove the defendant acted without reasonable cause and with malice.

JUDGMENT :

1.The defendant in a suit for damages on account of Malicious prosecution is the appellant. The plaintiff sought for total damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- under two heads from the defendant. Under the first head plaintiff claimed damages of Rs.50,000/- for injury sustained by him on account of false registration of Ext.A2 Crime No. 878/2016 of Harbour Police Station on 10.08.2016 and its conduct till the date of acceptance of Ext.A4 Refer Report by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Kochi on 18.04.2018 . Under the first head plaintiff claimed damages of Rs.50,000/- for injury sustained by him on account of the very same false allegations before the Departmental Authorities of the Cochin Port Trust, where both parties were working and the consequential delay in promotion, monetary loss and for mental agony, harassment and loss of reputation before the right thinking persons in the society.

2.The Trial Court decreed the suit in part granting damages of Rs.50,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the defendant under the first head. Though the defendant filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court dismissed the same confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

3.I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Litto Varghese Palathingal, and also the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, who appeared on filing caveat.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no specific finding by the Trial Court as to the malice on the part of the defendant initiating the criminal proceedings. The learned counsel relied on the decision in Govindji Khona v. Damodran and Others [1969 KHC 120], and Joseph George v. K.John 2014 (1) KHC 648 to substantiate the legal preposition that in order to succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution four points are to be satisfied namely; (1) the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant, (2) the prosecution ended in the plaintiff's favour; (3) the defendants acted without reasonable and probable cause and (4) the defendant actuated by malice. The learned counsel contended that the third and fourth ingredients are absent in the present case. The learned counsel further contended that the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, relied on the fact that the A4 Refer Report was accepted by the Criminal Court on 18.04.2018, but the defendant has approached before the Sessions Court challenging Ext.A6 order of the Criminal Court and the same is pending consideration and hence it could be said that the criminal proceedings are concluded in favour of the plaintiff. The delay in filing the complaint before the Police is well explained by the defendant in her examination that she wanted to settle the issue, and hence, the complainant was not submitted to the Police initially.

5.Ext.A4 Refer Report was made by the Police only on account of the fact that the incident did not happen in public view and not on the finding that no such incident happened. Since relief under the second head is not granted, there could not be any basis for granting relief under the first head. There is no adjudication with respect to the amount awarded by the Trial Court. The evidence clearly revealed that the defendant had every reasonable cause to initiate criminal prosecution against the plaintiff and only on account of the inability of the defendant to bring witnesses to substantiate her case before the Departmental Authorities and Police, it could not be treated that she initiated a false complaint against plaintiff.

6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that initially, the defendant submitted Ext.A1 complaint before the Internal Committee of Port Trust, and the Internal Committee conducted an enquiry and passed Ext.A11 Report on 21.12.2015 finding that no such incident happened. Thereafter, the defendant caused to register Ext.A2 FIR on 10.08.2016 against the plaintiff for the offence unde