KAN SINGH, J.—This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution and is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge, Ganganagar dated 39-8-69 awarding Rs. 2600/- to the plaintiff.

2. On 21-3-65 Hazur Singh defendant lodged a first information report at police station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar against the plaintiff-respondent Jang Singh and three others to the effect that when he along with one Bala Singh and Ganga Singh were passing through the Murabba of one Jogender Singh the four persons who were lying in ambush attacked them. Jang Singh plaintiff is said to be carrying a twelve bore gun belonging to accused Sarjeet Singh, Jangroop Singh is said to have an unlicensed pistol. Keka Singh is said to be armed with a Gandasi and Sarjeet Singh was having a lathi. Keka Singh challenged them. He snatched the Chaddar from the shoulder of Bala Singh in which Rs. 265/- were tied. Bala Singh was carrying the money for the purchase of cloth from Ganganagar. Sarjeet Singh instigated the other accused to fire at the first informant and others. The first informant and his companions took to their heels, but then Jagroop Singh fired his pistol at them, but none of them was hit. Ganga Singh ran towards village Hakmabad and he was chased by accused Jang Singh, but Hazur Singh could not say what fate Ganga Singh had met. Hazur Singh was accompanied by Bala Singh. On this report the police registered a case against the four accused for offences under secs. 392/397 read with sec. 34 Indian Penal Code and commenced the investigations. After the investigations, two accused Jang Singh and Jagroop Singh were challaned by the police in the court of Munsif Magistrate who committed the accused persons in the case and they came to be tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted both the accused on 29-3-66.

3. Jang Singh then filed the present suit against Hazur Singh in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar for damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- alleging that his prosecution was malicious. The plaintiff averred that the defendant Hazur Singh had a malice against him as Jang Singh had appeared as a witness against the defendant Hazur Singh in a criminal case No. 42 of 1964 State vs. Hazur Singh under secs. 323, 324, 326 and 392 Indian Penal Code in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Ganganagar. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 5000/- as damages for the loss of reputation, Rs. 5000/- as damages for the mental worry suffered by him and Rs. 900/- as special damages on account of the expenditure incurred in defending himself.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant. He denied that he bore any malice towards the plaintiff or that: there was any previous enmity between the parties for that matter. He denied that the case reported by him to the police was false. He asserted that the facts mentioned by him in his report were true. As regards the failure of the criminal case against the plaintiff, the defendant submitted that as the parties had made a compromise outside the court the witnesses did not depose against the plaintiff truly and it was for that reason that the case resulted in acquittal.

5. The learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues :—

"(1) Whether the report dated 21-8-65 lodged with the police by the defendant was without any reasonable and probable cause and the defendant had lodged this report due to enmity and had taken personal interest in the prosecution of the case?

(2) Whether due to the criminal case the plaintiff lost his reputation and was lowered in the eyes of the members of his community?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get from the defendant Rs. 5000/- as damages for loss of reputation etc., Rs. 5000/- as damages for the mental worry etc., suffered by him, and Rs. 900/- as special damages, together with the costs of the suit?

(4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

(5)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document