The burden of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause for malicious prosecution lies on the plaintiffs, and the judgment of the criminal court is relevant only to establish prosecution and termination in favor of the plaintiffs.

V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral)-This is a Regular First Appeal filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 20 of the H.P. Courts Act, 1976, against the judgment and decree of the Court of District Judge, Shimla, dated 1.1.2001, vide which the suit filed by the appellants as plaintiffs for recovery of Rs.2,12,000/-for malicious prosecution at the instance of defendant/respondent was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of the amount by way of damages for the alleged malicious prosecution at the instance of defendant Balbir Singh. It was alleged in the plaint that a false report had been lodged by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the defendant against the plaintiffs at Police Station Rohru, on the basis of which an FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 I.P.C. was registered against the plaintiff, his two sons i.e. present appellants No. 2 and 3 and two other persons. The case was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohru and the plaintiffs and others were tried for the said offence, but they were acquitted vide judgment dated 5.8.1997. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the report lodged by the defendant was false. He had procured false witnesses during the course of investigation and as such, the complaint had been lodged falsely to harm the reputation of the plaintiffs. They accordingly, claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-as damages for malicious prosecution, Rs. 1,00,000/-as damages for the alleged defamation and Rs.12,000/-on account of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on this amount.

3. The defendant contested the suit and denied the allegations that the report lodged byhim was false or the witnesses were procured one.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs were prosecuted by the defendant without any reasonable or probable cause, as alleged? … OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages, if so how much? … OPP.

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? …OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? … OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to sue by their acts, deeds and conduct etc., as alleged? ... OPD.

6. Whether the plaint lacks material particulars if so its effect? …OPD.

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of State of H.P.? … OPD.

8. Whether the suit is barred by time? … OPD.

9. Relief.

5. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they were prosecuted by the defendant without any reasonable or probable cause and as such, they were not held entitled to any damages.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

7. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were that the report lodged by the defendant with the police had been proved to be false since the material independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution story and that there are findings of the Criminal Court leading to the acquittal of the plaintiffs and other which proves that the report was false and as such, it proves that the defendant had lodged a false complaint against the plaintiffs and as such, they were entitled to the grant of damages for malicious prosecution. It was further submitted that the observations made in the judgment of the Criminal Court are relevant and they clearly prove that there are various contradictions in regard to the date of occurrence and the presence of witnesses and as such, the case of the plaintiffs stood proved and findings to the contrary are liable to be reversed.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the mere fact that the criminal case had resulted in acquittal of the plaintiffs is not sufficient to prove