To claim damages for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove both lack of reasonable cause and that the prosecution was initiated with malice.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

CM-8598-C-2019

This is an application for condonation of delay of 01 day in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 01 day in filing the appeal stands condoned.

Main case

1. Plaintiff is in second appeal.

2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking recovery of Rs.10 lacs as damages alleging malicious prosecution at the hands of defendants.

3. Plaintiff who was employed with defendants and was posted as Branch Manager of the Bank in Sector 47, Chandigarh was named as accused in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.176 dated 30.08.1999 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The trial culminated in the order of acquittal. The plaintiff remained in judicial custody from 07.02.2000 to 05.05.2000. The plaintiff claimed that the FIR was result of inimical attitude of defendants against him. Plaintiff claims that he was due for promotion when he was falsely implicated in the criminal case. Apart from losing his career, he lost his mother and suffered huge financial, personal and reputational loss. He accordingly sought Rs.10 lacs as damages.

4. Suit was contested by the defendants. As per defendant No.1, plaintiff during his term as Branch Manager, illegally advanced vehicle loan, consumer loans, cash credit limits and term loans, which led to huge financial loss to the bank. Plaintiff was served chargesheet dated 12.01.2000 and 13.01.2000. He was found guilty by inquiry officer. FIR No.176 was registered against the plaintiff. False implication alleged by the plaintiff was denied by defendant No.1. Defendants No.2 to 6 filed written statements on the lines of the defence pleaded by defendant No.1.

5. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of First Instance framing following issues:-

'1. Whether due to act and conduct of the defendants, service of plaintiff was dismissed and he suffered loss of reputation? OPP

2. Whether on account of malicious prosecution, mental agony and harassment, the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 10.00 lacs? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the defendants being public servants are not liable for payment of damages as they have acted in good faith and in discharge of their duties? OPD

5. Relief.'

6. On issue No.1, 2 and 4, the Court found that mere acquittal of the plaintiff in criminal case is not sufficient to presume that he was maliciously prosecuted. In a suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution, plaintiff is required to prove that the proceedings were initiated without any reasonable or probable cause with an intent to cause wrong to the plaintiff. The whole basis of the claim of the plaintiff is that false FIR was registered on the basis of affidavit of one Ms. Payal Bogra and that of Ms. Vaneeta Behal. None of them were however summoned as witness or arraigned as defendants in the suit.

7. The Court found that apart from oral evidence, plaintiff failed to prove malice on part of the defendants and thus was not entitled for damages. The Court of the First Instance accordingly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

8. The aforesaid findings stand affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.

9. Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. He submits that defendant No.5 at the instance of respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 6 struck a deal with two bank customers, i.e. Ms. Vaneeta Behal and Ms. Payal Bogra and procured their affidavits on stamp papers. It is on the basis of those two affidavits that the prosecution was initiated against the appellant with an intent to prosecute him maliciously. The plaintiff being Branch Manager was within his right and autho