IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.11.2025 Malkiat Singh @ Amrik Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Iqbal Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the ld. Courts below, whereby suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs.3 lacs on account of damages for malicious prosecution of the plaintiff, his wife Darshan Kaur, and Gurdev Singh, Uncle of the plaintiff and the defendants, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. The pleaded case of the appellant in the plaint was that the plaintiff and defendants are related to each other. The defendants bore a grudge against the plaintiff as their uncle, namely, Gurdev Singh had made a registered Gift Deed dated 11.04.2000 in favour of the plaintiff, and his wife Darshan Kaur. As such, defendants had filed false and frivolous complaint dated 10.10.2001 against the plaintiff and others; on the basis of which FIR No. 291 dated 03.12.2001 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC was registered at Police Station Banga against the plaintiff, his wife Darshan DIVYANSHI Kaur, uncle Gurdev Singh and Ram Tirath, who was witness of Gift Deed. However, the plaintiff was acquitted in the said FIR No. 291 dated 03.12.2001 vide judgment dated 13.11.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. As such, plaintiff filed present suit for recovery of Rs. 3 lacs by way of damages for the malicious prosecution of the plaintiff and his relatives.

3. Vide judgment and decree dated 11.04.2016, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed with costs by the learned District Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018. Hence, present Second Appeal by the plaintiff.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the malicious prosecution of the appellant by the defendants is established from the very fact that the plaintiff stood acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2013. It is submitted that the plaintiff had undergone long and rigorous trial for a period of almost 13 years. However, as the prosecution could not prove the charges framed against the plaintiff beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, plaintiff was acquitted. The plaintiff had even stepped into the witness box as PW1 and tendered his Affidavit in examination-in-chief. However, respondents did not choose to cross-examine the appellant. Therefore, the statement of the plaintiff had gone unrebutted. Clearly, therefore, plaintiff was falsely implicated in FIR No. 291 dated 03.12.2001 by the defendants.

DIVYANSHI

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the Ld. Courts below have failed to appreciate that the present appellant was unnecessarily dragged into the litigation by the respondents no. 3 to 5 who had got the above-mentioned FIR registered against the appellant and others through their attorney respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that respondents no. 3 to 5 did not even join the proceedings, whereas on the other hand the appellant and others were made to undergo the rigours of trial for almost 13 years. It cannot be ignored that during all those 13 years, the appellant had to personally attend the Court on each and every date of hearing, which is nothing but harassment and humiliation. The appellant in order to defend himself had to engage a lawyer. Thus, the respondents have misused and abused the process of Court in order to arm twist the appellant.

6. It is therefore, submitted that learned Courts below were in error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

In support, learned counsel relies upon following judgments:- 1. State of Rajasthan v. Jainudeen Shekh (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 703332;

2. S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews (SC) : L