Back
Madhya Pradesh High Court
P. K. TARE,G. P. SINGH
Girja Prasad Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Umashankar Pathak - Respondent
Decided On : 04/21/1972
Where the allegations made by the prosecutor are found to be false to his knowledge, want of reasonable and probable cause is clearly established. It has also to be inferred that the allegations were made with a view to use the machinery of law for an improper purpose which means presence of malice, for malice in law means an intent to use the legal process for a purpose other than its legitimate purpose. AIR 1955 Nag. 265 relied on.
(2) Tort–malicious prosecution–prosecutor–who is–person making false report and giving false evidence–is the prosecutor liable for damages–prosecution launched by the State–does not change the position.
Where the defendant not only made the report which was to his knowledge false but gave false evidence during investigation and during the trial. Although the prosecution was launched by the State yet the defendant, being instrumental in setting the criminal law in motion, was liable for malicious prosecution. ILR 30 All. 525 (PC) and AIR 1926 PC 46 relied on.
(Para 9)
(3) Tort–malicious prosecution–report filed to police–liability of Investigating Officer–extent of care to be exercised by such officer.
Reasonable and probable cause with reference to the duty of an Investigating Officer who files a charge-sheet for prosecution of a person as a result of his investigation means whether the investigation showed existence of facts from which it could be said that there was a case proper to be laid before the Court. It is true that he has a certain measure of discretion and can reject palpably false evidence, but when the evidence of commission of offence is from apparently credible source, it is not his duty to scrutinize the same like a Court to find whether the accused is really guilty. His only duty is to find out honestly whether there is reasonable and probable cause to bring the accused to a fair trial. 1962 (1) All. E.R. 696 (HL) relied on.
(Para 18)
In fairness the Investigating Officer should inform the accused of any evidence favourable to him so as to enable him if he so choses to use it is his defence. But the fact that the investigating Officer had in his possession conflicting evidence as to the guilt of the accused cannot lead to the inference that there was absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution or that he did not honestly believe that the case was fit to be laid before the Court. (1965) 1 QB 348 (CA) relied on.
(Para 19)
SINGH, J. :- This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for malicious prosecution.
2. The plaintiff Umashankar Pathak is an Advocate practising at Panna and a Jansangh leader. Towards the end of December, 1964, the Jansangh had started a sort of agitation on the question of food scarcity in Panna District and in that connection a Jansangh worker Badriprasad
(P. W. 9) was on hunger strike in front of the Collectorate, Panna. The building of the Collectorate also accommodates the Court of the Civil Judge. The defendant Girja Prasad is a Sub-Inspector and he was on duty in the Collectorate on January 2, 1965, to control the crowd which had gathered there in support of the agitation. At about 4-30 p. m. on that date there was an incident in which some revolver shots were fired or accidentally got fired from the revolver of Girja Prasad and one Sunder Singh (P. W. 7) was injured as a result of it. On that very date a first information report (Ex. P-37) was lodged by Girja Prasad in which it was said that he was assaulted by some persons from the crowd and his watch was santched. It was also said that while he was grappling with the person assaulting him his revolver got fired. It was further stated in the report that the plaintiff Umashankar Pathak was present and was instigating the crowd to beat him. This report was lodged with Jangbali Singh, defendant No. 2, who was the Station House Officer of Kotwali Panna. A case under Sections 147, 114, 332, 286, 307 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the police which was investigated by Chandrika Prasad, Circle Inspector Police, defendant No. 4. The plaintiff was arrested on this report on January 5, 1965 and was released on bail on January 8, 1965. A charge-sheet was put up against the plaintiff and other persons under Sections 395, 307, 332, 146, 186 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code on September 7, 1965. The plaintiff was discharged by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Panna, on June 30, 1966.
3. After the order of discharge, the plaintiff commenced the suit giving rise to this appeal for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution against Girja Prasad, Jangbali Singh, Chandrika Prasad and one Shambhoo Prasad Sinha, who was D. P. P. in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (J), Panna. The plaintiff alleged that all the four defendants had a grudge against him who was an important Jansangh leader and had made complaints from time to time against the police officers and had also appeared in many cases against them. It was also alleged that on January 2, 1965, the plaintiff was all along busy in the Court of the Civil Judge, Panna, in Civil Suit No. 36-A of 1963, in which on that date evidence was recorded and at the time when the incident took place he was actually cross-examining witnesses in that suit. It was further stated that at about 4-30 p. m. Sunder Singh, who was injured by revolver shots, and one woman entered the Court room and complained to the Civil Judge on which he adjourned the proceedings and came out and pacified the crowd. The plaintiff pleaded that all the defendants conspired together to falsely implicate him and without any basis whatsoever it was falsely alleged against him in the first information report that he instigated the crowd to beat the police. It was also pleaded that the criminal case was instituted against him with malice and without any reasonable and probable cause and the defendants were liable to pay damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 9,000/- as general damages and Rs. 1,600/- as special damages.
4. The defendants denied conspiracy, malice and want of reasonable and probable cause. Girja Prasad pleaded that his report was true. Jangbali Singh pleaded that he was merely the Station House Officer to whom the report was made and later the investigation was taken over by the Circle Inspector, defendant Chandrika Prasad. Chandrika Prasad pleaded that there was evidence against
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
