SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Mad) 190

SOMASUNDARAM
Marupaudi Kutumba Rao – Appellant
Versus
Parvathaneni Venkataramayya – Respondent


Advocates:
A. Sambasiva Rao for Appellant.
D. Munikanniah for Respondent.

Judgment

The three second appeals arise out of three suits filed by the appellants to recover damages from the respondent defendant for malicious prosecution. The defendant is the same in all the three suits.

In respect of an occurrence on 21st May, 1942, the defendant filed a complaint against the appellants and others for offences under sections 148, 149, 323, 324 352 and 504, Indian Penal Code. A prima facie case was made out, and so a charge was framed by the Magistrate against appellants and others for offences under sections 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code. The accused then entered upon their defence and examined defence witnesses. The Magistrate, after considering the defence evidence, acquitted the appellants. The appellants thereupon instituted the suits in the Court of the District Munsif, Vijayawada, for damages for malicious prosecution.

It may be mentioned, the appellants in S.A. No. 793 of 1947 filed a complaint against the defendant, alleging that the defendant and others came and beat him on 21st May, 1942, at about 4 p.m. There were thus two complaints one by the defendant against the appellants in the second appeals, and the other by the appellant in S.A. No. 783 of 1








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top