Acquittal in prior proceedings does not imply malicious prosecution; plaintiff must prove damage to reputation or legality of claim, which was lacking in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

CM-770-C-2025

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT is for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of the appellant, the same is allowed and the delay of 16 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

RSA-258-2025 (O&M)

1. The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned First Appellate Court thereby reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree dated 09.03.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 20 lacs as damages/compensation on account of defamation, mental pain, agony, harassment, tension and financial loss caused to the appellant/plaintiff due to the filing of false litigation by the respondent/defendant, was partly decreed by the learned trial Court with costs to the effect that the plaintiff was held entitled for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs from the defendant.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is the ‘plaintiff’ and the respondent is the ‘defendant’.

3. The brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that plaintiff has submitted that defendant is his son and has filed a false and frivolous complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on the false allegations that in order to discharge his liability for partial payment of the amount allegedly due from him, Plaintiff has issued a cheque No. 823669 dated 09.03.2015 for a sum of Rs. Ten Lacs drawn on IndusInd Bank, the Mall Branch, Amritsar. Subsequently the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The defendant after issuing a legal notice had filed a complaint under Negotiable Instrument Act on 09.04.2015. The plaintiff hotly contested the above said complaint and took specific plea that there is a dispute between him and his wife Gursharan Kaur and his son Gur Iqbal Singh i.e. defendant. The plaintiff has disinherited both of them. There are number of cases pending between him and his wife and he never issued any cheque to his son i.e. defendant. In fact, the cheque-in-question was stolen by his son from his almirah and it was filled up by him and signed it. Subsequently used the same to file a false and frivolous complaint against him. The cheque was used by the defendant to put pressure upon the plaintiff and to grab his property. After the long trial, the complaint filed by the defendant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was dismissed and plaintiff was acquitted by the court of Sh. Jaginder Singh, JMIC, Amritsar vide order dated 16.02.2017. Thus due to the illegal acts of the defendant, plaintiff had suffered a great humiliation, harassment, mental pain, agony and torture besides defamation and financial loss. The reputation of the plaintiff has also been lowered in the eyes of his relatives, friends and known persons. And, therefore, plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. Twenty Lacs from the defendant as damages/compensation along with costs.

4. Upon notice, the defendant had put in appearance and filed written statement raising various objections. No replication was filed by the appellant/plaintiff to the written statement of the defendant.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.20,00,000 as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the