Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J.
JAGDISH RATHORE - Appellant
Versus
NATHURAM - Respondents
S. A 1269 Of 2005
Decided On : 05/18/2006
Malicious Prosecution - Damages - Sections 354 and 506 IPC - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED: Sections 354 and 506 IPC] - The court discussed the legal principles of malicious prosecution and the requirements for proving such a claim. It highlighted the need to prove that the prosecution was instituted without any reasonable or probable cause and with a malicious intention. The court emphasized that the lack of reasonable and probable cause is essential in a suit of malicious prosecution. It also emphasized that the defendant must have acted without an honest belief in the guilt of the accused. The court found that the defendant had no reasonable and probable cause to prosecute the plaintiff and that the entire story was planted by the defendant with a malicious intention. The court held that the defendant was the prosecutor in the suit for malicious prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a government servant and teacher, was falsely accused of assaulting two girls and faced a criminal prosecution. He was ultimately acquitted, but suffered mental and physical harassment, reputation damage, and suspension from work. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages based on malicious prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant had no reasonable and probable cause to prosecute the plaintiff and that the entire story was planted by the defendant with a malicious intention. The court held that the defendant was the prosecutor in the suit for malicious prosecution.
Issues: The issues included whether the defendant had reasonable and probable cause to initiate the prosecution, whether the suit was liable to be dismissed due to nonjoinder of necessary parties, and whether the defendant was the prosecutor in the suit for malicious prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to prove the lack of reasonable and probable cause in a suit of malicious prosecution. It held that the defendant must have acted without an honest belief in the guilt of the accused. The court also clarified that the defendant was the prosecutor in the suit for malicious prosecution.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court held that the suit instituted by the plaintiff was not liable to be dismissed on account of nonjoinder of necessary parties.
( 2 ) A Suit for damages on the basis of malicious prosecution was filed by plaintiff/respondent. According to the plaint averments plaintiff is a Government servant and is serving on the post of teacher in primary school. From 1967 he is serving in different schools and there was no complaint against him. His service career remained unblemished. The parents and the students pay high respect to him. In the year 1996 he was transferred from Primary School. Sindoor Khana to village Jeen. On 8-3-1997 he came to know that some report has been lodged against him in police station chincholi and the police is searching him. On coming to know this fact he was surprised and did not believe the said information to be correct. It was beyond the expectation of the plaintiff that anybody would lodge any report against him since he has not done any criminal act.
( 3 ) ON 9-3-1997 the plaintiff was arrested by the police of police station. Chincholi and one being enquired by him, he was informed that defendant Jagdish Prasad submitted a written report dated 2-3-1997 on the basis of which a case has been registered against the plaintiff. In the written report it has been mentioned by Jagdish Prasad that on 3-8-1996, plaintiff for no cause, slapped his daughter, namely, Priyanka and her colleague and further it has been mentioned that he inserted his hand in the panty of these two girls. A case under Sections 354 and 506 IPC was registered against the plaintiff in which he was arrested on 9-3-1997 and thereafter he was bailed out from the Court.
( 4 ) THE plaintiff was prosecuted for the aforesaid offences and ultimately he was acquitted by Judgment dated 28-2-1998. The evidence of defendant was not, found reliable by the learned Magistrate and the entire case was found to be doubtful. On account of his prosecution, the plaintiff faced anguish and unnecessarily he was harassed. During the trial he was standing in the dock as an accused and was required to attend each and every date.
( 5 ) ACCORDING to the plaint averments the written report submitted in the police station Chincholi by defendant is concocted and was lodged because plaintiff in the school punished the daughter of defendant who was quarrelling in the class room in derogation to the discipline with other girls as a result of which defendant along with his friends, prahlad and Chokhelal, firstly assaulted plaintiff on 3-8-1996 as a result of which plaintiff sustained injuries ana when he reported the matter to the police, the defendant being influential person, police did not take any action. The defendant maliciously after 7 months lodged the written report.
( 6 ) THE plaintiff also faced the agony of his department as he was suspended and he was under suspension when the suit was filed. On account of malicious prosection by the defendant, the plaintiff was harassed mentally and his reputation was ruined as a result of which he has claimed Rs. 45000/-towards damages by filing the suit after his acquittal on 28-2-1998 in Case No. 68/97 of J. M. F. C. Betul.
( 7 ) THE defendant refuted the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that a correct written report was submitted by him mentioning in it that his daughter Ku. Priyanka who at the relevant point of time was studying m class III and the daughter of Prahlad Rathore namely Ku. Roshani was also studying in the same class and the plaintiff was a teacher of that class. On 3-8-1996 these two girls came to the house in weeping condition and narrated to the defendant that plaintiff without any cause gave slaps to them an
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
