Back
Allahbad High Court
DEOKINANDAN
Sheo Singh - Appellant
Versus
Ranjit Singh - Respondent
Decided On : 04/08/1982
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - DAMAGES - ACT-SECTION REFERRED - S.323/147/149/447 I.P.C. - SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - ELEMENTS OF MALICE AND ABSENCE OF REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution against the defendant, alleging that the defendant had lodged a false report and filed a criminal complaint against them under S.323/147/149/447 I.P.C. The plaintiffs were acquitted in the criminal case. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the fifth plaintiff only, while the lower appellate court reduced the amount of the decree in favor of the fifth plaintiff and gave the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 a decree for damages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant had no reasonable or probable cause for prosecuting the plaintiffs for the offences of rioting, being a member of unlawful assembly, and criminal trespass, as the plaintiffs were not present at the time of the incident and the defendant knew or should have known that he had lost possession of the land. The court also found that the defendant had falsely added the fifth plaintiff in order to make the offence more serious, showing that his motive was not to have the plaintiffs punished for the offence of causing hurt to him but to have them falsely prosecuted for other offences.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were prosecuted maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause? 2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get Rs. 4000/- as damages.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause are not objective facts that can be proved by direct evidence but can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The burden of proving malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause lies on the plaintiffs in a malicious prosecution suit. 3. The fact that the plaintiffs were acquitted in the criminal case is not conclusive evidence of malice or absence of reasonable and probable cause. 4. The court must examine the facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether the defendant had a reasonable or probable cause for initiating the prosecution and whether the defendant was actuated by malice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld the lower appellate court's decision to award damages to the plaintiffs.
2. According to the plaintiffs case, the first four plaintiffs are agriculturists, while the fifth plaintiff is a Government servant and all of them are respectable citizens and own property. On 13th April, 1960, the defendant lodged a false report against the plaintiffs and then filed a criminal complaint against them under S.323/147/149/447 I.P.C. The complaint was false and malicious and without any reasonable or probable cause. The plaintiffs were committed to sessions for trial under S.147/323/149, I.P.C. but were acquitted, they had to spend a large sum of money on their defence and also suffered in mind, body and reputation. The total amount of damages claimed was Rs. 4,000/-.
3. The defendants admitted having lodged the first information report and having filed the criminal complaint, and that the plaintiffs were acquitted by the sessions court of the charges against them. According to the defendant, four plots of land Nos. 604, 708, 761 and 877 in the village belonged to Smt. Charto who had mortgaged them with possession with his father Kadam Singh in the year 1944. Kadam Singhs name was recorded in the revenue records and he continued in possession of the said plots and on the abolition of the zamindari he became a sirdar of the land. Smt. Charto received compensation for the land. In consolidation proceedings too, the possession of Kadam Singh was upheld and of the four plots, three (Nos. 308, 761 and 877) were allotted in the Chak of Kadam Singh who entered into possession of the same on 10th March, 1958 in consolidation proceedings, plot No. 760 belonging to Daryao was adjacent to Kadam Singhs plot No. 761 and that too was allotted to Kadam Singh and he entered into possession thereof also simultaneously on 10th March, 1958. The new plot number allotted to the combined plots Nos. 760 and 761 was 666. Smt. Charto filed an objection after the stage of Form No. 24 in consolidation proceedings, against the defendant and his father Kadam Singh. On the 10th Jan., 1961, Smt. Charto was given possession on another plot of the same valuation. but there was no proceedings regarding possession of plot No. 761. On the 23rd April, 1960, when the defendant was getting the land of plots Nos. 760 and 761 ploughed by his servants Yad Ram and Teja, the plaintiffs came armed with lathis and injured the defendant, whereupon the first information report was lodged. The defendant was medically examined, and on his complaint, the plaintiffs were committed to sessions on a prima facie case being established against them. It was denied that the report or the complaint were false. He filed the complaint because he had received injuries. He denied that the complaint was filed on account of malice or without any reasonable or probable cause. It was added that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 had filed a suit for damages in respect of the same incident, for injuries caused to them, which was decreed by the trial court; but in appeal by the defendant, the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiffs was reduced on which he had filed a Second Appeal in the High Court which was pending at that time. The defendant pleaded that the trial of the suit was liable to be stayed under
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
