False implication of accused not proved by reliable evidence.

The defendant in O.S.No.579 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Pudukottai is the appellant before me. The respondent (M.Venkatarama Iyer) filed the suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution. According to the respondent/Plaintiff, the appellant/defendant preferred a false complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Karambakudi on 21. 1979 against the plaintiff and 10 others and the same was registered in Crime No.41 of 1979 for offences under Secs.347, 148, 341, 379, 323, 324 and 307, I.P.C. It is admitted that the plaintiff got anticipatory bail on 2. 1979. It is also admitted that proceedings under Sec.107, Crl. P.C. was launched against him. Ultimately, a charge sheet was filed on 212. 1979 dropping major offences referred to in the first Information Report and seeking to prosecute the plaintiff/respondent under Secs. 147, 148, 447, 341 and 323, I.P.C. By judgment dated 8. 1980, the plaintiff and others were acquitted. According to the plaintiff/respondent, he had been prosecuted only with malice and not for genuine reason. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondent sought to realize the expenses incurred by him as well as damages for loss of reputation. The plaintiff is said to be a retired teacher and a big farmer.

2. The defendant/appellant filed a written statement contending that his complaint was true and it was filed to vindicate the wrong committed by the plaintiff and others. It is also pointed out that there was some faction in the village on account of a sale transaction. Therefore proceedings under Sec.107, Crl. P.C. were rightly invoked. It was categorically stated that the defendant did not falsely implicate the plaintiff in the criminal proceedings.

3. On the above pleadings the learned District Munsif raised only two issues:

1. Whether the defendant had initiated the criminal proceedings without any reason and without any basis?

2. What is the relief that the plaintiff was entitled to?

4. The trial court decreed the suit and awarded a sum of Rs.1,500 as damages with costs. On appeal, the same was confirmed by the appellate Judge in A.S.No.39 of 1983.

5. In challenging the above judgments, it is argued that both the courts have merely relied on the judgment of the Magistrate in acquitting the accused, for decreeing the suit. It is pointed out that the Magistrate had adverted to the enmity between the parties and therefore drawing inference from the judgment of the Magistrate, the courts below have wrongly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had been maliciously prosecuted.

6. It transpires that the defendant’s brother one Abdul Hameed had entered into a contract with one Kasinathan for the sale of his property. But the defendant’s brother did not sell the property to Kasinathan and sold it to certain other third parties. Kasinathan is said to have filed a suit for specific performance. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the defendant had approached him to support his brother in the suit for specific performance. It is the further case of the respondent/plaintiff that he had refused to do so and on that account, he had been falsely implicated in the criminal case. It is in evidence that the agreement of sale was written by the respondent/plaintiff and had been marked as Ex.A-7 in the suit. It is also in evidence that Kasinathan was successful in getting a decree for specific performance in the trial court. We are not however concerned with those proceedings. We are concerned with the complaint lodged by the defendant/appellant before Karambakudi police station registered as Crime No.41 of 1979. The first information report is marked as Ex.A-1 in the suit. A careful perusal of Ex.A-1 shows that at about 3.00 p.m. on 21. 1979, when the defendant/appellant was harvesting his crops, he was summoned by certain persons including kasinathan and others. He replied by saying that he would come after the harvest. But the persons who had come to summon him proceeded to indulge in unlawf