The suit is filed for damages towards Malicious Prosecution and defamation suffered by the plaintiff.

2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:

The plaintiff is a famous Cine Artist and he had two wives and eight children. According to the plaintiff, the defendant who introduced herself as the plaintiff's admirer over telephonic conversation expressed her desire to meet him in person. The plaintiff also obliged the defendant's request to meet her in person as per customary practice. Taking advantage of this, the defendant secretly obtained information about the plaintiff's shooting locations and started to meet him under some pretext or other and also requested the plaintiff to render help to meet her livelihood. On humanitarian consideration, the plaintiff rendered help to the defendant.

(ii) While so, the defendant lodged a complaint under Section 376, 417 and 506 (II) of the IPC claiming that the plaintiff had raped her when she lost consciousness after consuming the juice given by the plaintiff and she became pregnant and gave birth to a female child. Based on this complaint, the plaintiff was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, he was also convicted. In appeal, this Court, while acquitting the plaintiff, directed him to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- apart from the fine amount of Rs.3,25,000/-. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the plaintiff against the said judgment was dismissed. According to the plaintiff, the defendant already married one Shiv Suresh Mishra and she also filed divorce petition against him. The defendant had instituted the above false complaint, that too, with malice in order to lower the plaintiff's reputation. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the above suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution and defamation.

3. The case of the defendant in nutshell is as follows:

The suit itself is not maintainable as the same has been filed after full fledged trial in a Criminal case filed by the defendant. The present suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution is nothing but a harassment and an abuse the process of law. Besides in S.C.No.579 of 2000, the plaintiff was being prosecuted under due process of law. According to the defendant, the suit is bad by non joinder of parties since the plaintiff had failed to implead the State represented by Inspector of Police, Vadapalani, who only prosecuted the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also committed an act of Contempt of Court as he failed to deposit the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- as ordered by this Court in the appeal. The suit is barred by limitation. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the above pleadings, this Court, vide order dated 30.08.2013 has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages against the defendant for prosecuting the plaintiff maliciously?

2. What is the quantum of compensation suffered by the plaintiff?

3. Whether the State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police R-2 Kodampakkam Police Station is necessary party in this suit?

4. To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was marked. The details of the documents are hereunder:-

Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff:

S. No	Exhibits	Date	Description of documents
1.	P-1	29.04.2008	Certified copy of police complaint lodged by the defendant
2.	P-2	23.07.2007	Photocopy of the Judgment in C.A.No.284 of 2001, High Court, Chennai
3.	P-3	25.02.2008	Certified copy of the order in SLP
4.	P-4	30.01.1995	Certified copy of the petition in OP.No.99 of 1995, Family Court, Chennai
5.	P-5	28.03.2003 to 13.12.2004	Certified copy of defendant'