Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 618
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Baij Nath Kamboj – Appellant
Versus
R.S. CH. Pratap Singh & Ors. – Respondents
RSAS-5208 AND 5256 of 2019(O&M)
Decided On : 12-07-2024
Mr. Vikas Sharma and Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava, Advocates; For the Appellant
Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to damages unless malice is established.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 - Damages for defamation - Plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- dismissed as courts found no mala fide intention in lodging complaints against him, and acquittal was based on benefit of doubt, not honor. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Acquittal - Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to damages for defamation unless malice is established. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, an accountant at a school, was acquitted of criminal charges after a complaint by the Principal, but his suit for damages was dismissed due to lack of evidence of mala fide intention.
Findings of Court:
The courts found that the plaintiff failed to establish a case for damages, as the acquittal was not indicative of malice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the acquittal alone warranted damages for defamation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not suffice for damages unless malice is proven.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral)
These two connected regular second appeals have come up for preliminary hearing. The learned counsel representing the appellant admits that both the appeals can conveniently be disposed of by a common order.
2. Hence, the facts are being noticed from RSA-5208-2019. In this regular second appeal, the plaintiff assails the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of damages. In the year 1986, he joined the respondents' School as an Accountant. The then Principal of the School filed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal which resulted in the registration of criminal case bearing FIR No. 355, dated 29.04.2000, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Subsequently, another complaint was lodged against the plaintiff by the Principal. The court untimately acquitted the appellant by giving him benefit of doubt on 09.09.2010. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed these two suits. Both the courts upon appreciation of evidence have found that the plaintiff has failed to make out the case for grant of damages. It has been found that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the respondents to lodge a complaint and the appellant was not honourably acquitted but was given the benefit of doubt.
3. Learned counsel representing the appellant contends that acquittal of the appellant is sufficient to grant damages.
4. This court has considered the submission, however, find no substance.
5. The appellant cannot be granted damages on mere registration of a criminal case, which ultimately resulted in acquittal by giving him the benefit of doubt.
6. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out in the concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below.
7. Both the appeals stand dismissed.
8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
