IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (111 Date of Decision:-12.02.2026 Tota Singh … Appellant Versus Nathiya Devi @ Bina Devi and Another ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Kirat Pal Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

CM-12506-C-2025 The application is allowed in terms of the prayer clause, subject to all just and lawful exceptions.

CM-12505-C-2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 29 days in instituting the appeal is condoned, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

Main Case

1. The present appeal has been instituted by the appellant/plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree whereby the learned District Judge, Sangrur, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/defendant and consequently set aside the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moonak.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of damages along with interest on account of alleged malicious prosecution and defamation. The grievance arises from FIR No. 135 dated 06.11.2006, registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Moonak at the instance of defendant No. 1, Nathiya Devi @ Bina Devi, against Geena Devi and others on allegedly false and fabricated facts.

2.1. Upon investigation, the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated and a cancellation report was submitted, which was accepted and treated as complaint by the learned Illaqa Magistrate. Trial resulted into acquittal. It is further alleged that the defendants made defamatory statements against the appellant/plaintiff and others.

2.2. As a consequence of the said criminal proceedings, the appellant/plaintiff was constrained to move a bail application, arrange for sureties, and incur substantial expenditure. He was further required to face trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, and after undergoing the ordeal of trial for nearly three years, he was ultimately acquitted. Consequently, the present suit for compensation along with interest came to be instituted.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein all material allegations were denied. It was specifically averred that the FIR in question had been lodged on true and correct facts. It was further pleaded that statements were duly recorded, and upon due appreciation of the evidence on record, the appellant/plaintiff and others were rightly summoned, and that no case of malicious prosecution was made out.

4. On the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues on 07.03.2017:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of damages from the defendants along with interest as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts, If, so its effects ?

OPD

4. Relief.

5. Upon the framing of issues, both parties were afforded adequate and sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective stands. After appreciating the entire material available on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and awarded compensation to the ₹

tune of 1,00,000/- per annum along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/defendant preferred an appeal, which came to be allowed by the learned District Judge, who held that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to establish either malicious prosecution or that his reputation had been tarnished in the estimation of the general public.

7. Assailing the said judgment and decree, the present appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned First Appellate Court has misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record and has returned findings based on surmises and conjectures.

8.