IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 155 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.11.2025.

Nihal Chand and others f .....Appellants Versus Bala Ram and others …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellants : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents : Nemo.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) .

The present appellants have filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, District Kullu, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2024, titled Nihal Chand and others vs. Bala Ram and others, whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 234 of

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2016, titled Nihal Chand and others vs. Bala Ram and others, has been affirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, herein.after in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, as emerge from the record, are that in the plaint, the plaintiffs pleaded that they are respectable and noble businessmen of the area, except plaintiff No.1 who is a teacher, and enjoy good reputation and respect. On 22-08-2009, defendant No.1 filed a complaint , leading to the registration of FIR No.325 dated 23-08-2009 against the plaintiffs. The allegations were that the plaintiffs entered the defendants' house, assaulted Hthem, and threatened them with dire consequences.

Consequently, the plaintiffs were prosecuted for offences under Sections 147, 325, 482 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, L&S at Kullu. However, vide judgment dated 24-12-2015, they were acquitted on the grounds that all witnesses were interested, being family members, and other witnesses turned hostile. No appeal was preferred against this acquittal.

4. It was further pleaded that the complaint was filed maliciously based on a false and concocted story, without any reasonable and probable cause, caus.ing the plaintiffs great physical and mental pain and loss of reputation. The plaintiffs attended approximately 30 hearings, traveling over 20 Kms, incurring expenses of ₹500/- per person per hearing, ₹40,000/- as counsel fees, and ₹45,000/- in bus fare, thereby claiming total damages of ₹3,85,000/-. Upon the defendants' refusal to pay, the suit was instituted. The defendants, in their written statement, raised preliminary objections regarding maintaina bility, cause of action and estoppel. On merits, they denied the plaintiffs' respectable status, asserted that the plaintiffs were quarrelsome, and maintained that the Hcomplaint was legitimate, detailing that defendant No.2 suffered injuries and was hospitalized. They denied any malice or lack of cause for prosecution.

5. After going through the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court has framed following issues vide order dated 08-05-2019, which are reproduced hereunder as:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages to the tune of ₹3,85,000/- on account of malicious prosecution along with interest, as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged?

OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi and cause of action to file the suit? OPD. .

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own acts and conduct to file the suit? OPD.

5. Relief.

6. The parties led evidence and the trial court, upon consideration, dismissed the suit. f

7. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiffs preferred the first appeal. In the first appeal, it was contended that the trial court committed illegality in not appreciating the facts, pleadings and evidence, particularly the intentional lodging of a false complaint without any offence having been committed. It was urged that the trial court failed to consider the evid