Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN
Gagandeep Singh (Now Deceased) Through – Appellant
Versus
Parminder Kaur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
LRs of plaintiff No.1 are in second appeal aggrieved of the judgment & decree passed by both the Courts below whereby suit filed by plaintiff/Gagandeep Singh seeking damages alleging malicious prosecution at the hands of defendant, stands dismissed.
2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position before the Trial Court, i.e., the appellant as ‘plaintiff No.1’ and the respondent as ‘defendant’.
3. As per the case of plaintiff No.1, he was falsely implicated in FIR No.27 dated 16.05.2011 punishable under Section 379 IPC registered at Police Station Mehta, in which he was acquitted vide judgment dated 09.09.2014. Plaintiff claims that pursuant to the FIR, he was arrested and remained in jail for one week. He had to attend to the trial regularly from January, 2012 till September, 2014 i.e. for almost 2-1/2 years. His reputation was badly damaged. He was running INC company in Canada. Owing to malicious prosecution, he could not pay the tax and the company was closed. After registration of case, plaintiff could not travel outside India and in the meantime, his permanent residency in Canada also got expired. Thus, plaintiff
To establish malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove both a lack of reasonable cause and a favorable termination of the proceedings; mere acquittal does not suffice.
To claim damages for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove both lack of reasonable cause and that the prosecution was initiated with malice.
Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically imply malicious prosecution; all elements of the claim must be established.
The judgment established that the proof of the four elements required for a tort of malicious prosecution cannot be adduced at the stage of an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, and highlighted the n....
Plaintiffs must demonstrate malicious intent and material damages in malicious prosecution claims, with mere acquittal insufficient for recovery.
In malicious prosecution claims, plaintiffs must prove malice and actual damages; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
