Whether approved for reporting?

1

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral).

The present petition arises out of the order as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Amb, District Una, H.P. dated 12.01.2026, whereby application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rules 11 of the CPC was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of malicious prosecution against the petitioners/defendants. As per the averments, as made in the plaint, the plaintiff is a senior citizen and he retired from the Government of India. He has two sons and four daughters and all are married in very reputed families. He noticed that various persons of his locality as well as some members of the Gram Panchayat Dangoh Khas were involved in various type of corruption and were misappropriating and misusing the government funds by way of preparing forged and fabricated documents. The plaintiff could not tolerate such corruption in his area. Therefore, he filed complaints before the authorities for inquiring into the matters and take the same to their logical end. Defendants No.1 to 3 are related to each other. They are inimical towards the plaintiff and his family due to the reason that he had filed complaints against them.

3. As per the plaintiff, the defendants with malafide purpose and to take revenge, they hatched criminal conspiracy and lodged a false, frivolous and fictitious FIR No.136, dated 22.09.2016 in Police Station Gagret, Tehsil Ghnari, District Una, H.P. under Sections 354, 506 and 504 of the IPC levelling false and frivolous allegations through Smt. Manoj Kumari defendant No.1 and alleging that on 22.09.2016, she was coming from her fields and when she reached near the water tank of temple in Village Dangoh at about 7.00 P.M., the plaintiff caught her from her arms and pressed her breast and tried to commit rape with her. As per the case of the plaintiff, police prepared and presented the frivolous challan under Sections 354, 506 and 504 of the IPC against the plaintiff in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amb. The plaintiff faced the criminal trial in case No. 199-1- 16/18-11/18, which was instituted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Amb and the said Court acquitted the plaintiff from all the charges under Sections 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC on 21.11.2018. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution seeking recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- against the defendants.

4. The suit has been resisted and contested by the defendants by raising various preliminary objections. On merits, all the averments as made in the plaint were refuted and denied.

5. The defendants/petitioners filed an application under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint as filed by the respondent/plaintiff. It has been averred in the application that after acquittal of the respondent/plaintiff, the State of Himachal Pradesh has filed criminal appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Una and the same is still pending before the said Court and fixed for service of the plaintiff. It is further averred that on that count, the suit filed by the plaintiff for malicious prosecution is premature until and unless he is acquitted in the criminal case by the competent Court of law.

6. The said application was resisted and contested by the plaintiff/respondent by filing reply. It has been stated in the reply that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Amb acquitted the plaintiff vide its judgment dated 21.11.2018. It was further stated in the reply that though the State has preferred the criminal appeal, which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, however, cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file suit from the date when he was acquitted from the charges, therefore, suit is very much maintainable. The plaintiff sought the dismis