(Cause title taken from CIS)

Order on Board

1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.07.2016 passed by the Learned 5th Additional District Judge, Ambikapur Distt- Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 1B/2012 (Abhay Narayan Pandey vs. Ajmer Singh & Others) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class- I, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 1B/2012 (Abhay Narayan Pandey vs. Ajmer Singh & Others). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking compensation for the damages suffered by him due to a malicious prosecution instituted against him by the defendants.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the President of Swaraj Mazdoor Union, Boxite Mine, Surguja and is also a social worker. In the course of his social activities, he had been raising public issues and organizing lawful protests to draw the attention of the authorities. The plaintiff had made several complaints and agitations against Defendant No.1 to 5 alleging misuse of ofÏcial position and misappropriation of public funds meant for welfare works, as well as acts of harassment and exploitation of common citizens. Due to this, the defendants developed personal enmity against the plaintiff. In furtherance of this enmity and under a criminal conspiracy, Defendant No.1 was allegedly used as a tool to lodge a false and fabricated complaint dated 28.03.2005, which was submitted at Police Station Shankargarh on 31.03.2005. Without proper investigation, the plaintiff was falsely prosecuted and arrested by Defendant No.2. It is further alleged that the police ofÏcials behaved brutally with the plaintiff, causing humiliation and his reputation was ruined in society. During trial, the prosecution failed to prove the allegations and the court ultimately acquitted the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 also filed an afÏdavit before the court stating that the complaint was lodged under pressure from certain influential persons and was not based on a real incident. Due to such malicious prosecution, the plaintiff suffered serious loss of reputation, livelihood, and social standing, and therefore seeks compensation from the defendants.

4. The defendants No. 2 to 5 filed their written statement and denied the averments. They contend that Defendant No.1 had lodged a written complaint on 31.03.2005 at Police Station Shankargarh. At the relevant time, Defendant No.2 was the Station House OfÏcer and, in discharge of his ofÏcial duties, registered an offence against the plaintiff under Sections 186, 294, 386, 212, and 507 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the said complaint. During investigation, prima facie evidence was found and accordingly a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. They assert that the actions were taken strictly in accordance with law and in discharge of ofÏcial duties, without any pressure or influence from Defendants No.3 to 5. The acquittal of the plaintiff resulted from the evidence led before the court, and the reasons why prosecution witnesses did not support the case is a matter of inquiry. It is further contended that Defendants No.2 to 5 are honest police ofÏcers who acted only in the discharge of their ofÏcial duties and that the proceedings were not initiated by them independently. Hence, they are not necessary parties to the present suit and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages from them.

5. The Defendant No.1 has been proceeded ex parte and has not filed any written statement.

6. After appreciating the evidence available on record and after framing the issues, the learned trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Thereagainst, the Civil Appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been d