Malice

Mere malice alone is not enough, there must also be shown to be absence of reasonable and probable cause and it is to be proved by the plaintiff that the prosecution was initiated without any justifiable reason and it was due to malicious intention of the defendant and not with the mere intention to carry law into effect.

It is conceivable for prosecution to be driven by malice and for complainant to have genuine belief that proceedings were warranted

Malice can be inferred in opposite case i.e. from absence of reasonable and probable.

General allegations of malice are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Plaintiff raised the plea that registration of FIR was malicious in nature which not only tarnished her image but made her to suffer mental torture, agony and loss of reputation

Validity

Reasonable and probable cause must be such as would operate on mind of a discreet and reasonable man

Malice and want or reasonable and probable cause had reference to state of defendant's mind at date of initiation of criminal proceedings

Plaintiff was involved in a false case whereas defendant chose not to proceed further in challenging order of Judicial Magistrate accepting report under S.173, Cr.P.C. as (cancelled) 'C-Class'

Plaintiff was not only humiliated but was subjected to malicious prosecution

Exercising powers to grant general damages under rule of thumb, damages were granted to extent of Rs. 200,000/- with 5% simple markup from date of decree till its realization

Suit was decreed accordingly.

Malice is to be pleaded with particularity and proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Distinction and proof.

Any action suffers from malice in law if authority taking action is not competent to do so or has acted beyond its powers or in violation of law applicable even though it may have acted bona fide and without ill-will

Malice in law is found when order has been passed without contrary to objects and purpose of relevant statute and in abuse of powers conferred upon such authority.

No smack of malice of the appellant was noticed by the Authority in the order passed by him it would not be fair to suggest that bail cancellation order passed by the appellant was based on malice in absence of any evidence

Nothing was on record to prove malice of the appellant

Authority had erred in law while dispensing with regular inquiry and issuing show-cause notice to the appellant

Malice could not be presumed on the basis of surmises and conjectures

No regular inquiry was conducted to prove any malice of the appellant

No reason, therefore, existed to propose the penalty of withholding of annual increments

Right of due process and fair trial being a fundamental right had been safeguarded under the Constitution which had been denied in the present case

Impugned notification being unfounded, without reasons, suffering from legal infirmity and vagueness had resulted into serious prejudice to the appellant and same was liable to be set aside

Appellant, however, was advised by the Tribunal to remain careful in future

Impugned notification was set aside and appeal was accepted.

Plaintiff was not under any obligation to specify any person of the Education Board with an allegation of any enmity rather it was ridiculous to presume that there would be any enmity or personal grudge of the officials of Education Board against a student

Non-performance of duties in accordance with rules, regulations and principle of natural justice would amount to mala fide on the part of Board officials

Where rights of any one were infringed then civil court had ample jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter

Plaintiff had proved his case through cogent evidence

Actual date of birth of plaintiff was 14-11-1993

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Court could evaluate the element of malice from the facts and circumstances of the case.

Onus of proving malice laid on the claimant.

Malice in common parlance, means ill-will against a person but in its legal sense, it means wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse

Malice is the state of mind manifested by an intent to commit an unlawful, act and a deliberate intention to commit the act.

Minutes of Board meeting indicated that an untrue statement about pendency of NAB inquiry against petitioner constituted one of two considerations for supersession

National Accountability Bureau inquiry against petitioner had though been dropped and Authority was informed about closure of said inquiry by NAB's letter dated 16-5-2006, nevertheless petitioner's penal pro forma forwarded to the Board was not corrected

Factual explanation given in para-wise comments filed by Authority that NAB's letter which was seen and initialed by him was erroneously placed in a file kept in a branch altogether different from the one dealing with the petitioner's promotion case was, found to be unsatisfactory

Such explanation admits a serious lapse in the performance of official duties by the functionaries

Huge but false stigma of corruption inquiry was allowed to undermine the petitioner's prospects for promotion in his career

Such treatment was callous; it led to unfairness and caused resentment and a sense of injustice in the victim

Such was the reason that the petitioner alleged malice

Although negligence and indifference in the discharge of official function might have led to the same consequences as malice, but the latter could not be presumed to infect the Authority's actions

No animus was visible from the present record and, therefore, the allegation of malice levelled in the petition was rejected

Allegation of absence of authority in the matter of fitness for promotion matter was subject to judicial scrutiny

Petitioner had suffered on account of a false representation about his service record before the Board that had side tracked his case for promotion to the next grade which he might have expected as a crowning milestone at the fag-end of his career

Impugned decision of supersession of petitioner by Board was declared by the High Court to be contrary to record, illegal and without lawful authority, therefore was set aside holding that the injustice worked in present case needs to be corrected in order that law may take its course.

-Connotation-"Malice" is not spite or hatred against any individual but of malus animus and denotes the working of improper and indirect motives.

Action would be said to be suffering from "malice-in-law", if Authority taking action was not competent to do so or had acted beyond its powers or in violation of law applicable, even though it could have acted `bona fide' and without ill-will

Person, who inflicted injury upon another person in contravention of law, would not be allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind as he would be assumed to know the law and he could be guilty of malice in law

Was sufficient to prove malice in law if it was shown that impugned action was not countenanced by law under which the Authority had acted.

General allegation of malice is not maintainable in the eye of law.

General allegation of malice was not sustainable in eye of law.

Distinction.

'Malice' in common parlance would mean, ill-will against a person, but in its legal sense it would mean a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse

In law, malice is based not upon evil motive which influences mind of actor, but upon illegal character of the act which he contemplates and commits

Question of 'malice in law' would not necessarily include imputation of dishonest motive, but it would include want of necessary care and caution

'Malice in law' further includes non application of mind on the part of authority vested with power.

Onus to prove the absence of reasonable and probable cause as well as malice on the part of the defendant in instituting the prosecution lies on the plaintiff.

General allegation of malice is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

In cases requiring "malice" it is not sufficient that if an accused had stopped to think, it would have been obvious to him that there was a risk

Accused must actually know of the existence of the risk and deliberately take it

To be malicious the accused must actually foresee some harm and the fact that he ought to have foreseen is, at best, some evidence that he did foresee

Whatever is done in violation of law, the same cannot be said to be done in good faith and what -is not done in, good faith is mala fide.

Malice in law and malice- -Distinction.

Allegation of malice against Government official-Action by Government official must be recorded as having been taken bona fide unless contrary established-Party not suggesting that Government officials were in league with any other party-Allegation of malice, held, to be repelled.

Ss. 300, Exception . IV, 302, 304-1, 307 & 308-Malice-Deceased present at place of occurrence by chance and receiving injuries because of his presence-Contention that F. I. R. was delayed till he died only making recital of pre-existing malice of respondent against him somewhat doubtful and afterthought-Held, none of respondents could be held responsible for murder:

Malice-Difficult to establish-Mere allegation-Not sufficient Mala fide cannot be established on basis of universal malice against particular class or section of people-No action against other workman-Does not per se lead to 'inference that action was malicious.

Whether factual or legal - Not a matter of presumption onlyAllegations to be considered in context of facts and circumstances of case.

Malice - Government order refusing facilities of travel abroad challenged as mala fide on grounds that (i) similar orders were passed on previous occasions also; (ii) some such orders were subsequently withdrawn; (iii) petitioner's organisation was barred;. (iv) he was detained under preventive laws; (v) petitioner's passport was cancelled and confiscated while he was under detention-Fact that writ petition filed in respect of allegations (ii) and (iii) contained no finding of impugned orders having been passed maliciously but were passed purely on legal considerations-Does not prove malice Petitioner failing to file affidavit in respect of allegations made by, him and failing to prove Government's action as mala fide-Action' of authorities, held, does not, in circumstances, indicate mala fides-Fact that in such cases previous orders were subsequently withdrawn shows watchfulness of authorities in performance of their duties and not malice.