SAREENA

VS.

SANDRAKALA

SUPREME COURT
ALUWIHARE, J.
DEHIDENIYA, J.
FERNANDO, J.
SC/APPEAL/162/2015
SC/HC/CA/LA/464/2014
NWP/HCCA/KUR/134/2010 (F)
DC KURUNEGALA 9540/M
SEPTEMBER 4, 2020

Malicious prosecution-actio injuriarum-animus injuriandi

Upon a complaint of theft made by the defendant, the plaintiff was arrested, produced before court, remanded for 10 days, prosecuted and acquitted by the Magistrate's Court. The plaintiff filed action against the defendant in the District Court claiming damages in a sum of Rs.400,000 stating that there was no reasonable or probable cause to make such complaint against him and that the defendant committed an injuria with the intention of impairing his dignity, reputation and personality. After trial the District Court held with the defendant. On appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment of the District Court. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held :

The law has introduced a set of essential factors in establishing an action of actio injuriarum and malicious prosecution. The interests of personality protected by the actio injuriarum are those interests which every man has, as a matter of natural right, to an unimpaired person, dignity and reputation. The malicious and unwarranted institution of criminal proceedings against another constitutes an actionable wrong. On perusal of the factual evidence pertaining to this case, it is clear that there was no reasonable or probable cause for the defendant to suspect the plaintiff of theft. The animus injuriandi on the part of the defendant is established.

Cases referred to :

1. Alwis v. Ahangama [2000] 3 Sri LR 225

2. Chitty v. Peries 41 NLR 145 at 147

3. Ranghami v. Kirihamy 7 NLR 357

4. Somasiri v. Ceylon Petroleum Corporation [1992) 1 Sri LR 39 at 43

5. Kalu Banda v. Rajakaruna [2002) 3 Sri LR 44 at 44

APPEAL from the Judgment of the High Court of Civil Appeal of Kurunegala.

Keshan Thalagahagoda with Rashmi Dias for the Defendant-Respondent-Appellant.

Kamal Nissanka for the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

December 1, 2021

DEHIDENIYA, J.

The Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Respondent") instituted an action by plaint dated 30.05.2006 seeking damages from the Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Appellant"). In her plaint, the Respondent had alleged that the Appellant had made a false complaint to the Polgahawela Police Station accusing the Respondent of theft. Upon the said complaint, the Respondent had been arrested, produced in Court, remanded for 10 days and thereafter released on bail. The Magistrate Court of Polgahawela had discharged the Respondent on or about 06.12.2005, on the basis that the witnesses had not presented themselves in Court. Consequent to the filing of the action in the District Court, the proceedings against the Respondent before the Magistrate's Court (Case bearing No. 13028) had been reopened. The matter had been taken up for trial and the Respondent was acquitted and discharged on or around 16.03.2010. The Respondent's cause of action in the District Court action arose when the Respondent was discharged by the Magistrate's Court on the account of the fact that the witnesses had not presented in Court before the case was reopened.

The Respondent contested that the Appellant's act of false allegation of theft, constituted an aggression upon her person, her dignity and her

reputation, and that the act was intentional. The Respondent has further stated that, in consequence of the complaint made by the Appellant, the Respondent had been arrested, assaulted by Police and thus suffered physical and mental trauma, the Respondent had to relocate with her family due to extreme social stigma and resulted in losing her small business and the education of the Respondent's child had got affected. The Respondent had denied the charges of theft and further c