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.

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 suffered losses which defendant needs to indemnify.

4. Suit was contested by the defendant. Defendant reiterated that on 25.04.2011 plaintiff having stolen wheat crops from the land measuring 1 Kanal 10 Marlas owned by the defendant, FIR was rightly registered against him.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, Court of the First Instance framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of damages of Rs.5,00,000/- as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD.

5. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 rule 11 CPC? OPD

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD

8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.

9. Relief.”

6. Trial Court after analyzing the judgment of acquittal, found that the acquittal was ordered extending benefit of doubt. Oblique motive on part of defendant could not be proved by plaintiff. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed.

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

8. Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below on Issue No.1 and submits that the same is result of misreading of judgment dated 09.09.2014 whereby the plaintiff was ordered to be acquitted. He submits that though the Trial Court observed in judgment that the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the fact remains that the defendant could not gather courage to come in the witness-box in the criminal trial to support the allegations levelled against the plaintiff which sufficiently demonstrates her oblique motive.

9. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through records of the case.

10. In the case of Narayan Govind Gavate vs. State of Maharashtra , (1977) 1 SCC 133 , Supreme Court quoted from Phipson on Evidence (11^th Edn.) (at page 40, paragraph 93) as under: "In deciding which party asserts the affirmative, regard must of courses be had to the substance of the issue and not merely to its grammatical form, which latter the pleader can frequently vary at will moreover a negative allegation must not be confounded with the mere traverse of an affirmative one. The true meaning of the rule is that where a g