A civil suit for damages premised on false criminal proceedings is premature and non-maintainable if an appeal against the acquittal remains pending. Finality of the criminal proceeding is a necessary prerequisite to the accrual of a cause of action for such claims.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act - Article 74 - Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 11 - Suit for damages - Malicious prosecution - Cause of action - Commencement of limitation - Pendency of appeal against acquittal - Suit for damages for legal injury arising from criminal charges cannot be instituted until proceedings attain finality upon exhaustion of appellate remedies - Pendency of such an appeal renders the suit premature as the acquittal has not attained finality - (Paras 30, 31, 34, 40).

Facts of the case:
An individual initiated civil proceedings for monetary compensation alleging false criminal charges following an acquittal. During the pendency of the suit, the opposing party filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint, contending the suit was premature as an appeal against the acquittal remained pending before a higher tribunal. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint on the basis that the cause of action was incomplete.

Findings of Court:
The court held that finality of criminal proceedings is essential for maintaining a claim for damages related to false prosecution. An acquittal currently subject to challenge in appellate proceedings does not constitute a final termination of the prosecution, and entertaining a civil claim at such a stage could lead to inconsistent findings.

Issues: Whether a civil suit for damages is maintainable while an appeal against the underlying order of acquittal is pending before an appellate court.

Ratio Decidendi: The cause of action for a suit for damages involving allegations of false criminal proceedings requires the final termination of said proceedings in favor of the claimant. As long as an acquittal is subject to challenge, the proceedings have not reached finality, making the suit premature and not maintainable.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

CM APPL. 4174/2026 (delay of 36 days in refiling)

1. An Application has been filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 36 days in re-filing the Appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay of 36 days in re-filing the Appeal, is condoned.

3. The Application is disposed of, accordingly.

CM APPL. 4173/2026 (for enlargement of time to deposit Court fees)

4. The present application has been filed by the Appellant seeking enlargement of time to deposit the court fee amounting to ₹1,00,084/-. At the outset, it is noticed that the requisite court fee on the present appeal has not been fully paid. The Registry shall compute the deficit court fee, if any, and ensure that the same is recovered from the appellant. Application is disposed of accordingly with the above direction.

RFA 68/2026 & CM NO.4172/2026

5. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read withOrder XLI Rule 1of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been preferred by the Appellant challenging the Judgment and decree dated 25.08.2025 of the learned District Judge-04, New Delhi, whereby the Suit filed by the Appellant seeking damages on account of malicious prosecution, was dismissed as being premature.

6. The genesis of the present Appeal lies in an Application filed by the Respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking the rejection of the Plaint. The learned District Judge vide Impugned Order dated 25.08.2025, allowed the Application, holding that the suit was premature, as an Appeal against the Appellant’s acquittal in the criminal case, was pending adjudication before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

7. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

8. The Appellant had filed a Suit bearing CS DJ ADJ 51/2022, seeking damages in the sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, on account of malicious prosecution in FIR No. 216/2017 under Sections 323, 376, 452 and 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

9. The averments made in the Suit were that Appellant is a senior decorated officer of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), having served the nation for more than three decades with an unblemished service record and having received several commendations, appreciation letters and rewards, during the course of his service.

10. According to the Appellant, the Respondent lodged a complaint at Police Station Sector-9A, Gurugram on 30.09.2017, alleging that at about 9:30 AM on the same day, the Appellant/Plaintiff had forcibly entered her residence, used abusive language, physically assaulted her and attempted to commit rape upon her. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 216/2017 was registered against the Appellant on the same day for offences punishable under Sections 323, 376, 452 and 506 of the IPC.

11. The Appellant was arrested on 06.10.2017 and, as stated by him, was subjected to custodial interrogation for about 6 days and thereafter, remanded to judicial custody for approximately 28 days.

12. It is the case of the Appellant that consequent to the said Complaint, he was placed under deemed suspension from service, with effect from 06.10.2017 to 02.09.2020, i.e. for approximately three years, and that the same had serious repercussions on his professional standing, career prospects and reputation.

13. During the period of suspension, Appellant’s place of posting was changed from Delhi to Hyderabad vide Order dated 23.02.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant filed Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 3584/2018 before the Delhi High Court, wherein the operation of the said posting Order was stayed, vide an Interim Order dated 16.05.2018. The Writ Petition was disposed of vide Order dated 16.01.2019, directing that the interim protection would continue till the conclusion of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix in the criminal trial arising out of FIR No. 216/2017, with a further direction that the Appellant would thereafter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5433

A civil suit for damages premised on false criminal proceedings is premature and non-maintainable if an appeal against the acquittal remains pending. Finality of the criminal proceeding is a necessary prerequisite to the accrual of a cause of action for such claims.

Cases Referred (1)