Back
2003 Supreme(P&H) 801
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Hemant Gupta, J.
Sukhwinder Singh
Versus
Ravinder Singh
Civil Revisions No. 2345 of 2003,
Decided On : MAY 23, 2003
The plaintiff must prove that the proceedings were instituted without reasonable and probable cause and that the defendant acted maliciously in order for an action to lie for malicious prosecution.
Headnote:
malicious prosecution - damages - Law of Torts, Fourteenth Edition (1965) at page 588, Major Gian Singh V/s. S. P. Batra, AIR 1973 Punj and Har 400, Kambhampati Venkata Satya-narayana V/s. Kambhampati Pedi Subbarao, AIR 1969 Andh Pra 29, Mohamed Amin V/s. Jogendra Kumar, AIR 1947 PC 108, Seshi Reddi V/s. Chandra Reddi, AIR 1957 Andh Pra 347 - The court discussed the principles of malicious prosecution and the necessary conditions for an action to lie for malicious prosecution. It emphasized the need for the plaintiff to prove that the proceedings were instituted without reasonable and probable cause, and that the defendant acted maliciously. The court also highlighted that the findings recorded in criminal proceedings are not binding on the civil court in an action for malicious prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages on account of malicious prosecution, alleging that false allegations were made against him by the defendants, resulting in his suspension and subsequent exoneration.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the allegations made by the defendants were of a criminal nature and that the plaintiff was exonerated. The trial Court awarded damages to the plaintiff for mental stress suffered.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages on account of malicious prosecution by the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving that the proceedings were initiated without reasonable and probable cause lies on the plaintiff. The court emphasized the need for the plaintiff to prove the necessary ingredients of malicious prosecution, including the absence of reasonable and probable cause and malicious intent.
Final Decision: The appeal and cross-objections were dismissed, affirming the finding of the trial Court in favor of the plaintiff.
1. This is defendants revision arising out of suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000.00 as damages on account of malicious prosecution alleging therein that he was elected Sarpanch of Village Mansa Khurd and was vested with the control and supervision over Panchayat property, funds, income and expenditure and that he is owner of 32 acres of urban area. Further, the case of the plaintiff is that he is a transporter and runs the buses in the capacity of Managing Director of Shergill Bus Service, Mansa. It is alleged that the defendants are closely related to one Bakhtaur Singh who was defeated by the plaintiff in the election of Sarpanch and the defendants have made a party with said Bakhtaur Singh to defame him. The defendants filed an application before the Director, Panchayat Development, Chandigarh or 27-8-1993 on false allegations and further followed said application by reminder dated 26-5-1994 alleging that the plaintiff had misappropriated the Panchayat land by getting the same allotted to his father and near relatives and had also encroached upon the drains besides cutting and selling the Panchayat trees. Such allegations were supported by affidavit as well. The Secretary, District Board, Sangrur made preliminary enquiry and found the plaintiff to be guilty of the allegations. Consequently, the plaintiff was suspended but as a result of regular enquiry which was afterwards conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, the plaintiff was exonerated and reinstated. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery claiming damages on account of malicious prosecution, as aforesaid.
3. Learned trial Court relied upon the judgment in Kapoor Chand Rikhi Ram Mahajan V/s. Hakim Jagdish Chand Siripat Rai, AIR 1974 Punj and Har 215, and returned a finding that the malicious prosecution does not mean prosecution in criminal Court alone but even if a person does an act which casts a slur on the plaintiff, he is entitled to damages. The trial Court found that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the allegations made by the defendants against him were of criminal nature and he was exonerated of the allegations vide report of the Deputy Commissioner (Exhibit P-6). The proceedings were terminated in favour of the plaintiff. It has been found that the complaint was made on account of party faction in the village since the plaintiff had defeated Bakhtaur Singh in the election of Sarpanch. It was also found that the defendants knew the allegations made by them were not based upon facts as they are residents of the same village. The allegations were levelled in absence of any reasonable or probable cause. Consequently, in view of the circumstances of the case and the status of the plaintiff, the trial Court held him to be entitled to Rs. 10,000.00 as damages for mental stress suffered by him.
4. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bathinda. The plaintiff also filed cross-objections claiming enhancement in the amount of damages awarded by the trial Court. The appeal as well as the cross-objections were dismissed by the District Judge thereby affirming the finding recorded by the trial Court.
5. The defendant has relied upon the judgment in Harpal Singh V/s. Markfed, Punjab, rendered by a single Judge of this Court in R.S.A. No. 1418 of 2002 decided on 22-5-2002 to contend that a finding has to be recorded in the proceedings in respect of damages which are sought to be claimed. Order dated 22-5-2002 reads as under :-
"I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court vide which the judgment and decree dated 10-5-1999 passed by the trial Court has been reversed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for claiming damages on the ground of having been prosecuted in a criminal case and that having been invo
