JUDGMENT :

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)

1. This is regular second appeal filed by the unsuccessful appellant-plaintiff in a suit for damages filed by her for malicious prosecution.

2. The brief facts of this case, as has been delineated from the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, are that the appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit claiming therein that the appellant was employed as a teacher in government school and she was married with the respondent, who at that time was posted as Constable in Punjab Police. However, their marriage could not go smoothly, therefore, the appellant had initiated certain proceedings against the respondent on matrimonial side. Ultimately, the respondent had filed a petition for divorce from respondent, which was dismissed upto the High Court. Just to harass the appellant further, the respondent registered a false and frivolous case i.e. FIR No.76 dated 21.05.2004 under Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC against the appellant; for allegedly; fabricating a certificate showing the appellant to be in reserve category of 'Economic Weaker Section'. However ultimately, in the said case, the appellant was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2011. Accordingly, it was asserted that since the appellant was harassed and prosecuted with a malicious intention, therefore, she was entitled to claim damages to the tune of Rs.10.00 Lakhs. Accordingly, the suit was filed.

3. The appellant appeared as a witness in the present suit as PW-1 and she also examined her sister as PW-2 to assert that she had not taken the government job on the basis of said certificate; and also to bring on record the other facts relating to the matrimonial aspects. Beside this, the acquittal order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana was led in evidence as Ex.P-1.

4. After appreciation the evidence led on file by the respective parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant, vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.2017. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant had filed the appeal before the lower Appellate Court, which was also dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2018. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

5. Arguing the case, learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the assertions made in the plaint and has submitted that since the appellant has been acquitted on the charges in a complaint filed by the respondent with a mala fide intention, therefore, the appellant is entitled to claim the damages and the same has rightly been claimed. Both the Courts below have gone wrong in law in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. No other argument has been raised.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, this Court finds that the respondent was only an informant regarding the alleged offence having been committed by the appellant. Thereafter, since it was a FIR case, therefore, the entire action was taken by the police, and not by the respondent. Even the police had found some substance in the allegations leveled by the respondent, therefore, challan was also filed against the appellant. However, the record shows that during the trial, the prosecution examined only the respondent-author of the FIR and the Investigating Officer of the case. Both of them have duly deposed in commensurance with the information supplied by the respondent to the police. However, thereafter the prosecution did not produce the remaining witnesses and the material to complete the evidence in the case. Therefore, the trial Court closed the prosecution evidence by order of the Court. It is in these circumstances that the appellant has been acquitted by the trial Court in the FIR case on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove the case by not leading the material evidence on the file. By any means, it cannot be said that it was the respondent-author of the FIR, who was responsible for not