Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
V. Yesudoss – Appellant
Versus
C. Manikandan – Respondent
S.A. (MD) No. 170 of 2017, C.M.P. (MD) No. 2978 of 2017
Decided On : 14-06-2023
Malicious Prosecution - Damages - Section 323 IPC, Section 324 IPC, 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C - The court discussed the requirements for claiming damages for malicious prosecution and highlighted the need to satisfy the absence of reasonable and probable cause, malicious intent, termination of criminal proceedings in favor of the plaintiff, and damages suffered as a result of the prosecution. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt due to contradictions in the evidence, not on the ground of a false complaint by the defendant. The court also noted that the plaintiff failed to prove damages resulting from the criminal prosecution. The Second Appeal was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for malicious prosecution, seeking damages from the defendants for a false complaint that led to the plaintiff's criminal prosecution and subsequent acquittal. The Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit, and the Second Appeal was filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff failed to satisfy all the mandatory requirements for claiming damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff's acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt due to contradictions in the evidence, not on the ground of a false complaint by the defendant. The Court also noted that the plaintiff failed to prove damages resulting from the criminal prosecution.
Issues: The issues revolved around the satisfaction of mandatory requirements for claiming damages for malicious prosecution, the basis of the plaintiff's acquittal, and the proof of damages resulting from the criminal prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff must satisfy the absence of reasonable and probable cause, malicious intent, termination of criminal proceedings in favor of the plaintiff, and damages suffered as a result of the prosecution to claim damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff's acquittal based on the benefit of doubt due to contradictions in the evidence did not establish a false complaint by the defendant, and the plaintiff failed to prove damages resulting from the criminal prosecution.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 15.11.2016 passed in A.S. No. 52 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 07.02.2014 passed in O.S. No. 366 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai and allow the present Second Appeal.
1. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 366 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit.
2. The suit was filed for malicious prosecution and the plaintiff had claimed in the suit damages at Rs.50,000/- from the defendants for the alleged malicious prosecution. According to the plaintiff, on 10.05.2004, the first defendant lodged a false complaint against the plaintiff before the Kuzhithurai Police Station as if the plaintiff and three others had assaulted him with their hands on chest, back of chest and lower part of abdomen by legs. According to the plaintiff, based on the said complaint, the Police issued a receipt No. 347/04 to the first defendant and a case was registered under Section 323 IPC read with 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Subsequent to the filing of the charge sheet, the criminal case was numbered as S.T.C. No. 1900 of 2004. According to the plaintiff, subsequently, during the course of trial, based on a memo filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Kuzhithurai, the case was altered to a charge framed under Section 324 IPC against the plaintiff and the case was numbered as C.C. No. 181 of 2005. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant has not properly investigated the case and the second defendant ought to have advised and protested to the acts of the Assistant Public Prosecutor as the case was not a fit case for alteration of charge to one under Section 324 IPC from Section 323 IPC.
3. The plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court (ITRC) and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 324 IPC by the Trial Court, namely, the Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Kuzhithurai, by its judgment and decree dated 08.01.2007 in C.C. No. 181 of 2005. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the plaintiff filed a Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District in C.A. No. 32 of 2007. The Appellate Court on 28.08.2009 in C.A. No. 32 of 2007 allowed the criminal appeal filed by the plaintiff by acquitting the plaintiff by giving the benefit of doubt to him.
4. On his acquittal, the plaintiff has filed the suit O.S. No. 366 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai for malicious prosecution against the defendants, who are the defacto complainant and complainant and has sought for damages in the said suit. The Trial Court, namely, the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, by its judgment and decree dated 07.02.2014 in O.S. No. 366 of 2010 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and has also awarded cost of Rs.3000/- each payable to the defendants by the plaintiff in the said suit.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2014 passed in O.S. No. 366 of 2010, the plaintiff in the suit filed a first appeal before the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai in A.S. No. 52 of 2014. The Lower Appellate Court, namely, the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, also confirmed the findings of the Trial Court by dismissing the first appeal by its judgment and decree dated 15.11.2016 passed in A.S. No. 52 of 2014. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit.
6. This Court on 04.04.2017 admitted the Second Appeal by formulating the fol
A claim for malicious prosecution requires reliable evidence; if the prosecution fails to substantiate its claims, the accused may claim compensation for wrongful prosecution.
To succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove the defendant acted without reasonable cause and with malice.
To claim damages for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove both lack of reasonable cause and that the prosecution was initiated with malice.
Malicious prosecution requires proving malice and lack of reasonable cause. The court established the appellants acted without sufficient basis, resulting in damages awarded for mental anguish.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
