Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2068
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
Roop Chand - Appellant
Versus
Sukhdev Chand and others - Respondents
R.S.A No.3974 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 05-10-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate.
To claim damages due to malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must establish that the prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause and with malicious intent.
Headnote:
Malicious Prosecution - Damages - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 323, 324, 34, 452) - The court discussed the legal provisions related to malicious prosecution and the requirements for claiming compensation/damages. It highlighted the need to establish that the prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause and with malicious intent. The court emphasized the importance of proving malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause to succeed in a claim for damages due to malicious prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages/compensation on account of malicious prosecution by the respondents-defendants. The defendants contested the suit and filed a counter claim for compensation. The trial court dismissed both the suit and the counter claim, which led to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution terminated in favor of the plaintiff, but the remaining requirements for claiming damages due to malicious prosecution were not fulfilled. It concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish that the cases initiated by the defendants were without reasonable and probable cause and with malicious intent.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the plaintiff for compensation and damages, locus standi to file the suit, maintainability of the suit, estoppel by own act and conduct, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, entitlement of the counter claimant for compensation and damages, maintainability of the counter claim, locus standi to file the counter claim, and whether the counter claim was time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to prove that the prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause and with malicious intent to succeed in a claim for damages due to malicious prosecution. It highlighted the legal principles related to malice and reasonable and probable cause, emphasizing the burden of proof on the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no legal infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the lower courts. No substantial question of law arose in the appeal.
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phillaur, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant-plaintiff Roop Chand filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 10 lacs as damages/ compensation on account of malicious prosecution by the respondents-defendants.
3. As per averments in the plaint, appellant-plaintiff went to United Kingdom (U.K) some years back and used to occasionally visit India. He used to work and earn his livelihood in United Kingdom (U.K). Defendant no.1 and 3 filed civil as well as criminal caes against the plaintiff regarding his ancestral property with mala fide intention to cause him loss of reputation, mental agony and to bear unnecessary litigation expenses in addition to the travelling expenses from United Kingdom (U.K) to India and back. To achieve their evil designs they even pressurised the plaintiff to abandon his claim regarding his ancestral property situated at Village Rurka Kalan. Defendants in connivance with each other and with mala fide intention filed a criminal case under Sections 323, 324, 34 and 452 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) against the plaintiff and others, which has been dismissed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur on 25.08.2000. It is further pleaded that defendants intentionally dragged the plaintiff to the false criminal proceedings and caused him mental agony, loss of work, loss of reputation and also burdened him with unnecessary litigation expenses and travelling expenses. He was also deprived of his monthly salary during the period the said case remained pending. Hence the suit.
4. Defendants-respondents contested the suit on the ground inter alia that the plaintiff has himself filed so many cases against them and dragged them to unnecessary litigation. The civil suits filed by him against the defendants were dismissed with costs. He even forged a Will dated 24.06.1984. The criminal complaint filed by Sukhdev Chand was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal against that judgment was pending.
5. Defendants also filed the counter claim. They also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs on account of loss of work, wages and mental agony suffered by them.
6. The counter claim filed by the defendants was contested by the present appellant.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 01.02.2002:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation and damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standti to file the present suit? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD
5. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
6. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to compensation and damages to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs? OP Counter Claimant
7. Whether counter claim is not maintainable? OPD
8. Whether the counter claimant has no locus standi to file the present counter claim? OPD
9. Whether counter claim is time barred? OPD
10. Relief.
8. On appreciating the evidence on record and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant as well as counter claim filed by the defendants-respondents.
9. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 23.05.2009 passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff-appellant preferred the appeal, which has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. Hence this Regular Second Appeal.
10. I have heard Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and have meticul
