Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for W. B. State Electricity Board VS Dilip Kumar Ray...

Checking relevance for PANDIT GAYA PARSHAD TEWARI VS SARDAR BHAGAT SINGH...

Checking relevance for MOHAMED AMIN VS JOGENDRA KUMAR BANNERJEE...

Checking relevance for Sumer Chand VS Union Of India...

Checking relevance for Dinesh Gupta VS State of Uttar Pradesh...

Checking relevance for Ravinder Kumar Sharma VS State Of Assam...

Checking relevance for Israr Ahmed Khan Suri, S/o Enuhaq Khan VS State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja (C. G. )...

Checking relevance for Vidya, D/o. Late N. Krishnaswamy VS E. Velu, S/o. Ekanathan...

Checking relevance for Ram Sharan Singh VS State of U. P. ...

Checking relevance for Shahul Hameed VS S. Anjalai...

Shahul Hameed VS S. Anjalai - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 2783 : Yes, a malicious prosecution damage suit can lie even if the accused was removed by the police in the final report. The court held that the prosecution against the petitioner (a Sub-Inspector of Police) was malicious and amounted to an abuse of process of law, despite the fact that the petitioner had been exonerated in the police''''s final report. The court emphasized that the inclusion of the petitioner in the private complaint was unjustified given the earlier negative investigation report, and that criminal proceedings manifestly attended with malice and ulterior motives are impermissible. This establishes that a person exonerated in a police final report may still have a valid claim for malicious prosecution if the subsequent private complaint was filed with malice and without reasonable grounds.Checking relevance for Upendra @ Balveer VS State of U. P. ...

Checking relevance for Parminder Kaur VS State of U. P. ...

Checking relevance for RAVINDER SINGH VS SUKHBIR SINGH...

Checking relevance for Bank Of India VS Lakshimani Dass...

Checking relevance for Onkarmal and Nagarmal VS Banwarilal...

Checking relevance for United India Insurance Company LTD. : M. K. J. Corporation VS M. K. J. Corporation: United India Insurance Company LTD. ...

Checking relevance for RUSI SAHU VS DEBARAJ BISWAL...

RUSI SAHU VS DEBARAJ BISWAL - 1990 0 Supreme(Ori) 89 : Yes, a malicious prosecution damage suit can lie even if the accused was removed by the police in the final report. The court held that the mere fact that the police filed a final report and discharged the accused does not automatically bar a claim for malicious prosecution. The key factors are whether the prosecution was instituted without reasonable and probable cause and whether the defendant was actuated by malice. In this case, the courts below misdirected the case as malicious prosecution instead of false imprisonment, but the court emphasized that for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the prosecution ended in their favor, was without reasonable and probable cause, and was motivated by malice. The fact that the accused was ultimately discharged by the police does not negate the possibility of a malicious prosecution claim, as long as the other ingredients are satisfied. However, the burden of proving reasonable and probable cause lies on the defendant, and if the defendant can establish such cause, the claim may fail even if the accused was later discharged.Checking relevance for T. V. Lakshmojirao VS Somavarapu Venkatappaiah...

Checking relevance for AMALDAR SINGH VS SABHAJIT SINGH...

Checking relevance for YENAM SESHI REDDI VS BODDURI CHANDRA REDDI...

Checking relevance for Zakir Ali VS Ali Muhammad...

Checking relevance for Pannalal VS Shrikrishna...

Summary on Malicious Prosecution and Police Reports in Final Reports

• Malicious Prosecution Elements: To establish malicious prosecution, it must be proven that the prosecution was initiated without reasonable and probable cause and with malicious intent. Several sources highlight that honest belief in guilt by prosecutors or police officers does not constitute malice, provided they act in good faith (e.g., sources ["Suryabhan S/o Hiraman Nimje vs Dayaram S/o Shankarrao Pajankar - Bombay"], ["Israr Ahmed Khan Suri, S/o Enuhaq Khan VS State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja (C. G. ) - Chhattisgarh"]).

• Role of Police and Final Reports: Filing a final report by police officers, such as Deputy Superintendents, is a statutory duty during criminal investigations. Courts have emphasized that such reports are made in good faith and within legal obligations, thus generally not constituting malicious acts unless proven otherwise (["SEENIVASAPERUMAL vs SARAVANAKUMAR - Madras"], ["SEENIVASAPERUMAL Vs SARAVANAKUMAR - Madras"]).

• False or Malicious Reports: If police or officials knowingly file false reports or act with malice, victims can pursue damages for malicious prosecution. Several cases demonstrate that if the prosecution was initiated based on false, frivolous, or malicious reports, the affected party may claim damages, especially after acquittal or termination in their favor (["Shashi Kant Kushwaha VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Ved Parkash Yadav VS RWA Krishna Apartment - Delhi"], ["V. Yesudoss VS C. Manikandan - Madras"]).

• Impact of Final Report and Police Action: Courts have held that police investigations and filing of final reports are part of statutory duties, and unless malicious intent or lack of probable cause is established, these actions do not automatically lead to damages claims. For example, police filing a final report after investigation does not imply malicious intent unless proven otherwise (["Dilip Shankarappa VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"], ["SEENIVASAPERUMAL Vs SARAVANAKUMAR - Madras"]).

• Damages and Suitability: Damages for malicious prosecution are claimable if the prosecution was initiated maliciously and without reasonable cause, and if the proceedings terminated in favor of the accused (e.g., acquittal). The mere filing of a final report or police report, in itself, does not automatically lead to malicious prosecution claims unless accompanied by proven malice or falsehood (["Shashi Kant Kushwaha VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Israr Ahmed Khan Suri, S/o Enuhaq Khan VS State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja (C. G. ) - Chhattisgarh"], ["S. P. Gupta: V. M. Tarkunde: J. L. Kalra: Iqbal M. Chagla: Lily Thomas: A. Rajappa: Union Of India: D. N. Pandey: R. Prasad Sinha VS Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: P. Shivshankar: Union Of India: Union Of India: P. Subramanian: Union Of India: K. B. N. Singh - Supreme Court"]).

Analysis and Conclusion

• The name of the accused in a police final report is typically a formal part of the investigation process and does not inherently imply malicious intent. Malicious prosecution claims depend on proving malicious intent and absence of reasonable cause, not merely the inclusion of a person's name in a final report (["Suryabhan S/o Hiraman Nimje vs Dayaram S/o Shankarrao Pajankar - Bombay"], ["Shashi Kant Kushwaha VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]).

• False or malicious reports can lead to damages claims, but courts generally recognize police acts within their statutory duties unless malice or falsehood is established. Therefore, removing a person's name from a final police report does not automatically imply malicious prosecution damage unless it can be shown that the report was filed with malicious intent or falsehood.

• Conclusion: The mere fact that a person’s name was included in a police final report or that they were accused does not automatically mean a malicious prosecution damage suit is valid. Such suits require proof of malice and lack of probable cause, not just the presence of their name in a report.

References:- ["Shashi Kant Kushwaha VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Suryabhan S/o Hiraman Nimje vs Dayaram S/o Shankarrao Pajankar - Bombay"], ["Ved Parkash Yadav VS RWA Krishna Apartment - Delhi"], ["Dilip Shankarappa VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"], ["Israr Ahmed Khan Suri, S/o Enuhaq Khan VS State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja (C. G. ) - Chhattisgarh"], ["V. Yesudoss VS C. Manikandan - Madras"], ["SEENIVASAPERUMAL vs SARAVANAKUMAR - Madras"], ["SEENIVASAPERUMAL Vs SARAVANAKUMAR - Madras"], among others, discuss the principles of malicious prosecution, police investigation duties, and criteria for damages.