A claim for malicious prosecution requires reliable evidence; if the prosecution fails to substantiate its claims, the accused may claim compensation for wrongful prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

B. Pugalendhi, J.

This second appeal is filed by the 2^nd defendant as against the concurrent findings of the Courts below in OS.No.85 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and in AS.No.132 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 / plaintiffs have filed the suit in OS.No.85 of 2012 before the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli seeking a compensation of Rs.Two lakh that they have been maliciously prosecuted by the defendants 1 and 2 in SC.No.419 of 2008. The suit was decreed by the trail Court by its judgment and decree dated 23.02.2018, as against the same the defendants 1 and 2 filed an appeal in AS.No.132 of 2018 before the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli and it was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24.02.2021. Aggrieved over the same, the 2^nd defendant has filed this second appeal.

3. This second appeal has been filed on the following substantial questions of law:

a) Whether the Courts below are correct in decreeing the suit, especially when the PW1 himself admitted that there is no previous enmity between the appellant and respondent ?

b) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, without considering the real fact on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence in an individual manner as per Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC?

4. When this second appeal has been taken up for admission on 29.02.2024, notice has been ordered to the respondents and an order of interim stay has been granted. The records of the lower courts have also been called for. Subsequently the respondents 1 to 3 / plaintiffs filed a petition in CMP(MD)No. 5720 of 2024 to vacate the order of interim stay granted by this Court on 29.02.2024. When the said petition was taken up for hearing, the appellant was not ready in CMP(MD)No.5720 of 2024 and therefore, this Court by order dated 09.09.2024 allowed the said civil miscellaneous petition and vacated the order of interim stay dated 29.02.2024 and listed the second appeal for final hearing.

5. For sake of clarity and convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks in the original suit before the trial Court.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant / 2^nd defendant submits that the 2^nd defendant was the Inspector of Police, Eravadi Police Station, he had conducted the investigation in Crime No.26 of 2008 and filed the final report as against the plaintiffs. Therefore the plaintiffs with a motive, have filed the suit seeking compensation, as if they have been maliciously prosecuted. The case was tried by the Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in SC.No.419 of 2008 and the plaintiffs have been acquitted under Section 235(1) of CrPC by extending the benefit of doubt to the accused / plaintiffs and not by holding that they have been maliciously prosecuted.

7. The learned Counsel by referring the evidence of PW1 submits that though PW1 has admitted that there is no motive between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2, he has stated that the final report has been filed against them maliciously with a motive. PW1 has taken contradictory stands and therefore, his evidence is not a reliable one. However the trail Court based on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 has decreed the suit as prayed for.

8. The learned Counsel further submits that the incident had taken place in the year 2008, however the suit was filed in the year 2012 after a period of four years form the date of incident. He also submits that the deceased in Crime No.26 of 2008 is the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The 2^nd defendant has fixed the plaintiffs as accused. Though the plaintiffs have taken a stand that they are not the accused, they have not taken any steps to