O R D E R

The defendant is the revision petitioner

2.The above revision petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.226 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni on the ground that it is an abuse of process of law and there is no cause of action in the plaint for filing the said suit.

3. Though the respondent/plaintiff has been served through Court on 30.12.2017, the respondent has neither appeared in person nor engaged a counsel.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that he was working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police at Bodi, Theni District and he had filed a final report, in which, the plaintiff was shown as accused in Crime No.332 of 2013. However, the respondent/plaintiff was acquitted by the trial Court on the basis of benefit of doubt. Since the plaintiff was acquitted in the criminal proceedings, he has filed the present suit claiming a sum of Rs.1,01,000/- as damages towards malicious prosecution.

5.A perusal of the plaint shows that one Eswaran has lodged a police complaint before Chinnamanur Police Station for the alleged offences under Section 294(b), 506(i) I.P.C r/w Section 3(i)(x) of Prevention of SC & ST Atrocities Act and an F.I.R was registered by the Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station in Crime No.332 of 2013.

6.Since the offences are under the prevention of SC & ST Atrocities Act, as per statutory provisions, the same has to be investigated only by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus the defendant in the present suit had conducted the investigation and filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam in PRC.No.15 of 2014. The Judicial Magistrate committed the same before the Principal District Court and the said Court had taken on its file in Spl.S.C.No.8 of 2015. After full fledged trial, the plaintiff and his brother were acquitted on 22.02.2016.

7.The relevant averments in the plaint relating to the allegation of malicious prosecution are as follows:

“V.The plaintiff further submit that subsequent to registered the above Crime No.332/2013 the defendant taken the investigation as per the rules laid down by the procedure established by the law, and the defendant laid a charge sheet against the plaintiff and his brothers before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam for the alleged offence under Section 294(b), 506(i) I.P.C r/w 3(i) (x) of the Prevention of SC & ST Atrocities Act, the same was taken on file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Uthamapalayam vide PRC.No.15 of 2014 and the learned Magistrate committal the same before the Principal District Court for exclusively trial and the same, the District Court taken on its file vide Spl.S.C.No.8 of 2015 and after the full trial and hearing the arguments, the plaintiff and his brother were acquitted by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Theni on 22.02.2016.

VI.The plaintiff further submit that the defendant being the investigating officer, he doesn't have applied his mind, and he is not conduct any basic enquiry, he filed a final report without any iota of truth in a mechanical manner...

VII.The plaintiff further submit that the inefficient investigation of the defendant is not genuine and also highly illegal, the defendant take the kaw in his own hands, without adopting any due procedure of law and make a statements as his whims and fancies for the reasons best known to him......

VIII....... The plaintiff further submit that the defendant not to do his duty property and the inefficient investigation by the defendant the plaintiff caused mental agony, physical pain, discomfort and injuring his reputation also.....

8.Based upon the said averments in the plaint, the plaintiff has contended that the prosecution lodged by the defendant is with malicious intention in order to defame and bring down the reputation of the plaintiff.

9.Let us now consider the ingredients that are to be satisfied for the plea of malicious prosecution to succeed. As per judgment of this Court