Malicious Prosecution

Malicious prosecution is a tort recognized under the principles of English common law, which provides a remedy to individuals who have been subjected to criminal prosecution without reasonable and probable cause and with malice

To bring a successful claim for malicious prosecution, it is essential for the plaintiff to establish: (i) that they were prosecuted; (ii) that the prosecution ended in their favor; (iii) that the prosecution was initiated without reasonable and probable cause; and (iv) that it was actuated by malice

Absence of reasonable and probable cause alone is insufficient to prove malice; while it may serve as a relevant circumstance, but the plaintiff must prove malice, defined as a wrongful or improper motive

Malice is a subjective state of mind and may be inferred from surrounding circumstances, but inference alone must be supported by credible evidence

Therefore, even where reasonable cause may appear weak or absent, a claim for malicious prosecution cannot succeed unless mala fide intent is clearly demonstrated

In the present case, the first two elements are not in dispute: the petitioner / plaintiff was prosecuted and subsequently acquitted

However, as remaining elements, specifically the absence of reasonable and probable cause, and the presence of malice , the petitioner / plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof

A perusal of the FIR and the facts narrated therein revealed that the respondents had reasonable grounds to suspect the involvement of the petitioner and his co-accused in the events surrounding the death of person mentioned in FIR (deceased)

It was admitted fact that the deceased was initially injured by receiving bullet injuries, after which he succumbed to his injuries

In such circumstances, the lodging of an FIR and initiation of criminal proceedings could not be deemed as lacking in probable cause

Additionally, there was no evidence on record to support the assertion that the FIR was lodged with malafide intent

On the contrary, the FIR was registered pursuant to an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under S.22-A Cr.P.C., and the matter proceeded through a regular investigation, culminating in submission of a challan and a full trial

If the complaint had been found to be frivolous or baseless, the investigating agency would have discharged the petitioner (accused / plaintiff) at the initial stage

The fact that the petitioner was ultimately acquitted did not, by itself, establish that the prosecution was malicious

It is trite law that malice cannot be presumed merely from the outcome of acquittal or failure to secure a conviction

Appellate court had rightly applied the settled legal principles while setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which were based on sound reasoning and did not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction

Revision petition, filed by plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner /defendant assailed order whereby the preliminary issue with regard to limitation in the suit filed by the respondents was answered in negative and the suit was found to be within time

Validity

Prayers made by the respondents /plaintiffs showed that they filed the suit seeking multiple reliefs i.e. litigation charges on account of malicious prosecution suffered in the suit filed by the petitioner as well as the litigation cost of the suit

Therefore, it transpired that it was a composite suit involving multiple causes of action subject to different limitation periods, such as Arts. 23 and 24 of the Limitation Act, 1908

Principles of natural justice and due process do not envisage the Court to act as a mere conduit mechanically applying one limitation period to the entire suit, rather, the Court is required to perform an active judicial function and consciously apply the limitation period relevant to each specific cause of action

Where causes of action are distinct and separable, limitation is assessed individually for each claim

The principle is to identify the dominant or primary cause of action and apply the corresponding limitation period

This distinction is critical in composite suits involving multiple claims

Where a suit combines claims for compensation for malicious prosecution (Article 23) and compensation for libel (Article 24), limitation for each claim is to be assessed separately

There is a responsibility upon the Court to exercise its judicial mind on each independent cause of action because the consequence of misapplying limitation periods would result in the potential denial of substantive rights or unjust dismissal of claims

Record showed that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction on 08.10.2021, relevant paragraph of which contained the alleged libel ;that suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.10.2022

The respondents filed the suit for recovery of damages on 28.11.2022

Said sequence indicated that the respondents' claim for damages was well within time

Thus, no illegality or jurisdictional defect had been found in the impugned order passed by Trial Court

Revision, being merit-less, was dismissed.

Factors to be established by plaintiff before a decree for malicious prosecution could be awarded enumerated.

In the present case the cause of action claimed in the suit had its genesis in initiation of criminal proceedings by the respondent, but mere fact that prosecution instituted by respondent/defendant against the plaintiff ultimately failed, could not expose the former to malicious prosecution, unless it was proved by the plaintiff that the prosecution was initiated without any reasonable and probable cause and it was due to malicious intention of the defendant and not with a mere intention of carrying the law into effect.

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.

Claim for damages in the case of malicious prosecution carries two facets relating to (i) general damages and (ii) special damages

General damages refer to special character, condition or circumstances which accrue from immediate, direct and approximate result of wrong complained of

Special damages follow as a natural and approximate consequence in a particular case by reason of special circumstances or condition

Appellant failed to substantiate on record through cogent and unimpeachable evidence justification for award of general damages and in that regard only examination-in-chief of witnesses was valueless

So far as special damages were concerned, for that he had to prove that all the ingredients of malicious prosecution had co-existed to establish his claim of damages which throughout he could not prove

High Court dismissed the appeal of appellant accordingly.

It means an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based on a full conviction founded upon reasonable grounds of the existence of circumstances, which assuming them to be true would reasonably lead any ordinary prudent man and cautious man placed in the position of the accuser to the conclusion that such person charged was probably guilty of the crime imputed.

Appellant initiated litigation against the respondent on account of illegal allotment of government land (Charagah) and ultimately was declared unsuccessful

Respondent filed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution against the appellant, which was partially decreed by the Trial Court

Validity

Institution of criminal or civil proceeding for an improper purpose and without probable cause is not justifiable

Person who claims for compensation on account of malicious prosecution, must also establish the connection between the reasonable and probable cause and the malice

For the purposes of bringing a claim for malicious prosecution the requirements of "absence of reasonable and probable cause" and "malice" are separate requirements although they may be twined

Every prosecution/ inquiry which ends in a clean chit for the opponent will not per-se entitle the opponent to file a suit for compensation

Existence of malice itself is not sufficient to prove malicious prosecution but should be accompanied by proof of absence of reasonable and probable cause and the malice should be proved affirmatively

Revenue hierarchy from time to time issued notifications that the 'Charagah' lands had expressly been excluded from every grant, thus, any alienation or grant of proprietary rights thereof were not in consonance with the Government policy

District Collector, Mandi Bahauddin, was not competent to allot Charagah's land under the policy without obtaining permission from the Board of Revenue, so, the order for allotment of land to the respondent under Lambardari grant was without lawful authority and was rightly cancelled and it was also very much clear that the appellant had rightly pointed out regarding wrong allotment of land to the respondent under Lambardari grant and his act was without any malice, thus, the appellant filed the appeal with a reasonable and probable cause and the proceedings initiated against the respondent was without any malice

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Malice means the presence of some improper and wrongful motive that is to say, some motive other than desire to bring to justice a person whom the prosecutor honestly believes to be guilty.

Definition stated.

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.

Plaintiff was nominated in criminal prosecution by defendant bank, who after framing of charge was acquitted by Trial Court

Plaintiff filed suits against defendant bank to recorder damages for malicious prosecution

Defendant contended that the suits were filed with mala fide, intention and were vexatious and misconceived

Validity

Liberty of plaintiff was never compromised as he was not incarcerated

Entire trial concluded in a period of approximately 5 months

Such trial could not be classified as protracted trial

Issue regarding damages was redundant and the same did not require any deliberation

Suit was not filed with mala fide intention nor was it vexatious or misconceived, therefore, it was maintainable in law

High Court awarded damages to the tune of Rs.5,000,000/- in addition to interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of decree till realization, as adequate compensation for the wrong committed against plaintiff

Our societal norms dictate that lodging of a criminal case adversely affects reputation of accused and creates unwanted public perception

Societal tendency to trigger false criminal case can only be curbed by expeditiously adjudicating cases pertaining to malicious prosecution and holding wrongdoer accountable for his / her acts

This is the only deterrent and expeditious disposal is pivotal in curbing such tendency

Suit was decreed accordingly.

A suit for damages for malicious prosecution was filed by the respondent against the petitioner which emanated from FIR No.133/2018 lodged under Ss.420/448/506-B, P.P.C.

Suit was decreed for Rs.12 million

Appeal against the decision of Trial Court was dismissed

The legal point for determination in the whole proceedings was as to "whether the test for malicious prosecution was correctly applied by the courts below"

Held: The Supreme Court has time and again disparaged the tendency of frivolous litigation

Lodging of false FIRs has unfortunately become a norm which can only be curbed by awarding damages in favour of the individual who was wronged

Admittedly an FIR No. 133/2018 was initiated by the appellant under Ss.420/448/506-B, P.P.C.

It was also admitted that the prosecution ended in the favour of respondent

It was evident from perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court in the criminal case that the Trial Court specifically adjudicated that it was a "case of no evidence" and no evidence had been given by the appellant to connect the respondent with the alleged offence

It was also evident from the examination and perusal of the record that the appellant effected appearance in the suit, filed written statement and also filed his affidavit-in-evidence, however, the appellant despite being given repeated chances failed to appear for his deposition and only restricted himself to the cross-examination of the respondent

The argument of the counsel that the appellant was condemned unheard, was unwarranted for the reason that the said appellant participated in the proceedings and subsequently even cross-examined the respondent

The examination in chief filed by the appellant, in the absence of him being subjected to the test of cross-examination, was rightly not considered by the Trial Court and therefore not taken into adjudication

No substantial error or defect could be pointed out in the impugned judgment

The appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plea raised by appellant / defendant was that acquittal of respondents / plaintiffs was on the basis of benefit of doubt and was not an honorable acquittal

Validity

Both terms "simpliciter acquittal" and "honourable acquittal" refer to situations where accused is acquitted of charges

Simpliciter acquittal is a basic legal determination based on lack of evidence, whereas honorable acquittal carries a more positive connotation, potentially reflecting broader vindication of innocence or character of accused

Initiation of criminal proceedings despite full and final settlement of appellant / defendant's claim and lack of subsequent legal actions by appellant / defendant after passing of acquittal judgment were significant indicators of malicious intent

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court (Judge in Chambers of High Court)

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Proceedings initiated by the claimant require that the original proceedings (prosecution) must have been malicious and without any reasonable and probable cause

Every person in the society has a right to seek protection of his rights, but while doing so, such person should not infringe the corresponding rights of others by instituting improper legal proceedings in order to harass them by unjustifiable litigations

To succeed in an action for malicious prosecution, a claimant must plead and prove the following ingredients: (i) that plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant; (ii) that the prosecution ended in favour of the plaintiff; (iii) that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause; (iv) that the defendant was actuated by malice with improbable motive and not to further the ends of justice; and (v) that the proceedings had interfered with the plaintiff's liberty and had also affected his reputation and the plaintiff had suffered damages.

At times, while lodging of criminal cases, wider net is cast to implicate an accused including other family members to ensure that none of them is left free to pursue their case in Court

After trial in many cases the accused who are nominated are acquitted

However, in number of cases the complainant of the case walks away freely without facing the consequences of a false accusation

Societal propensity towards false accusations in FIRs can potentially be curbed through civil suits for malicious prosecution.

Every case, which ends in acquittal, would entitle the guiltless accused to sue for damages, as in that case, the damage caused would be beyond repair and the criminal justice system would come to a halt

As by doing so, the aggrieved person would suffer at the hands of the incompetent investigation and the people would lose the courage to register their claims and the same would in turn lead to a chaos

Burden is and would be on the person claiming damages that whether such prosecution was based on malice or not

Malicious prosecution means to obtain a collateral advantage

It is to be seen whether due to ill will or any indirect or improper motive, without any reasonable or probable cause, prosecution has instituted or FIR has been lodged

The test would not be whether the criminal proceedings instituted on false and frivolous allegations had reached the court rather would be that such proceedings had reached a stage at which damage to the plaintiff resulted, providing a tort for redressal for having been prosecuted without reasonable cause and with malice.

Appellate Court , dismissing claim of the plaintiff, observed that as the appellant was not acquitted honourably by the Trial Court, therefore, the case of the appellant did not fall within the ambit of malicious prosecution

Held, that the said observation of the Appellate Court was not tenable for the reason that the word "honourable acquittal" was alien to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Acquittal is an acquittal simpliciter and must entail all consequences of pure acquittal

Clean acquittal and acquittal through benefit of doubt amount to honourable acquittal.

Prosecution had ended in favour of appellant but his liberty was interfered with as he was arrested in the criminal case

However, the remaining three ingredients - the respondent having acted without reasonable and probable cause; respondent being actuated by malice and the appellant having suffered damage-were not proved

Ingredients of malicious prosecution were not proved by the appellant

Appeal was dismissed.

For a claimant to succeed in action for malicious prosecution, must plead and prove, with credible and cogent evidence, fulfillment of following ingredients: (i) plaintiff was prosecuted by defendant; (ii) prosecution ended in favour of plaintiff; (iii) defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause; (iv) defendant was actuated by malice with improbable motive and not to further the ends of justice; and (v) proceedings interfered with plaintiff's liberty and had also affected his reputation and plaintiff had suffered damages.

Respondent/plaintiff after his acquittal from criminal charge, sought recovery of damages for malicious prosecution against petitioner/defendant who had registered criminal case against him

Two Courts below decreed the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff

Validity

Every case, which ends in acquittal does not ipso facto entitle the acquitted accused to sue for damages, as in that eventuality, damage caused would be beyond repair and criminal justice system would come to a halt

By doing so, aggrieved person would suffer at the hands of incompetent investigation and people would lose courage to register their claims and the same would in turn lead to a chaos

Burden remains on the person, claiming damages, to prove that the charge against him was outcome, of malice and mala fide and that the sole purpose was to tarnish his character and damage his reputation

For malicious prosecution, it was the bounden duty of respondent/ plaintiff to convince Court of competent jurisdiction, that proceedings against him were outcome of malice and mala fide

Petitioner/ defendant charged both rival groups that by itself was sufficient to tell that petitioner/defendant had no mala fide against plaintiff/ respondent, rather he acted with bona fide

If there had he any malice, he would have singularly charged plaintiff/respondent

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed in favour of respondent/plaintiff, as both the Courts below fell into error and failed to appreciate the issue in its true perspective

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Plaintiff/respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs. 125 million as damages and compensation against the petitioner/defendant in which petitioner filed an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C which was dismissed by Trial Court

Held, that malicious prosecution fell under the law of Torts providing redressal of grievance for those who had been prosecuted " without reasonable cause" and that prosecution was tainted with "malice"

Malicious prosecution is an action instituted with intention to injure body and rights of a person without any probable cause

Person who has been subjected to face legal proceedings instituted against him would naturally be aggrieved by such proceedings as he had to put expenses to defend himself in the civil lis and also had to face agony of the proceedings as well as loss of precious time

If, at the end of lis, such civil litigation against a person failed, then he had remedy to approach Civil Court for grant of compensation in the shape of damage(s) caused to him due to such malicious civil litigation

Suit for recovery of damages on the allegations of malicious civil prosecution filed by the respondent/plaintiff was maintainable

Revision was dismissed, however Trial Court was directed to decide the main lis between the parties strictly in accordance with law on merits expeditiously.

Jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of a suit for damages on the ground of loss of reputation and defamation was expressly barred by S. 13 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002

Exclusive jurisdiction was conferred upon District Court to adjudicate upon such matters

Special law excluded general law and where special tribunal or Court was established to hear and decide a dispute, which was contemplated by the special law, then jurisdiction of Courts constituted under general law were ousted from exercising powers of same nature

Plaintiff might have a good case of malicious prosecution as he claimed to have been acquitted of the charge after full-fledged trial in FIR lodged under S. 39 of Electricity Act, 1910 by Trial Court and appeal against acquittal was dismissed by High Court

Plaintiff did not possess any authorization on behalf of the Hotel to sue defendants for damages and compensation

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Dispute between parties related to right of appellant/defendant to continue to use a parcel of land adjacent to his property that respondent/plaintiff claimed was his

Validity

Held, there could be civil proceedings that had undermined right of liberty at an interlocutory or final stage or right to property and/or reputation such as in a claim alleging bankruptcy or failure to abide by financial obligations

Such civil claims, which raised questions regarding probity and honesty of conduct of a claimant, could have consequences for reputation of such claimant, which might not be made whole simply by grant of litigation costs at the end of proceedings

Such was in the context of civil proceedings of such nature (which infringe upon the right to liberty and/or dignity/ reputation and property of a party forced to defend his/her conduct in civil proceedings) that had inflicted damage on appellant/defendant that could lead to a claim for malicious prosecution of civil proceedings

Nature of proceedings between parties was not such that could possibly undermine liberty or reputation of respondent/plaintiff

One of the ingredients in the test for malicious prosecution was not satisfied to the extent that respondent/plaintiff had incurred financial costs during civil proceedings in question

Appropriate remedy for relevant Court was to grant costs to respondent/plaintiff under provisions of Ss. 35, 35-A & 35-B, C.P.C. as amended through Costs of Litigation Act, 2017

For purposes of recovering litigation costs and/or costs in relation to any inconvenience suffered by respondent/plaintiff, no independent cause of action for recovery of damages for tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings accrued to respondent/plaintiff

Mere failure of one party to prove a civil claim did not create automatic right for contesting party to bring suit for malicious prosecution

To find otherwise could function as a major deterrent discouraging citizens from employing process of law to try their rights and could become a fetter on the right of access to justice, apart from creating further litigation even after the matter was laid to rest in civil proceedings

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below in favour of respondent/plaintiff

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

To subject a person to malicious prosecution not only causes interference in the right to liberty guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution but also the right to dignity and to be treated in accordance with law articulated under Arts.4 & 9 of the Constitution

Ultimate reasons that prompted a person to initiate legal action under malicious prosecution are having sustained financial hardship, litigation cost, mental anguish besides loss to reputation on account of false accusation.

To ensure that upright citizens and right minded persons of society can discharge their responsibility of reporting crimes to law enforcement agencies without any fear of being sued for 'malicious prosecution' in discharge or acquittal of accused and on the other hand to confirm that no innocent person becomes victim of false involvement in criminal litigation in the hands of persons having influence in the society due to their position, contacts or long pockets as well as to strike a balance between such two important rights of citizens

Courts must cautiously verify that one who claims damages under tort of 'malicious prosecution' must prove its all ingredients by discharging burden of proof up to requisite standard.

Plaintiff is required to prove 'malice' and 'reasonable and probable cause' independently in cases of 'malicious prosecution'

When issue of 'reasonable and probable cause' is not established, question of 'malice' becomes irrelevant and even otherwise Court may not be required to prove further because of failure of claimant to cross one hurdle

When 'reasonable and probable cause' is established, Court should carefully examine element of 'malice' on the part of defendant.

Lower Appellate Court was drawing presumption of 'malice' from report of police officer filed under S.173, Cr.P.C. without even examining maker of the report to unearth as to the reason of discharge and that how investigating officer found respondent/plaintiff innocent during 'face to face' discussion (??????? ?????)

Important for respondent/plaintiff to provide possible evidence to prove entire ingredients of 'malicious prosecution' and it was duty of Trial Court to secure all possible evidence as to the elements of 'malicious prosecution' before reaching to finding and allowing damages

Finding of 'malice' on the basis of report under S.173, Cr.P.C., without examining maker of statement/report was unsafe

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and remanded the matter for decision afresh after procuring evidence of concerned police officials and careful examination as to the ingredients of 'malicious prosecution'

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Suit for damages against Federal Investigation Agency ("FIA") for initiation of inquiry and passing order of freezing Bank accounts

Scope

Suit for damages could circumvent the bar of S. 8 of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974

Cause of action for such a suit would only arise if and when the prosecution against the plaintiffs failed.

Suit for damages against Federal Investigation Agency ("FIA") for initiation of inquiry and passing order of freezing Bank accounts

Scope

Suit for damages could circumvent the bar of S. 8 of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974

Cause of action for such a suit would only arise if and when the prosecution against the plaintiffs failed.

Suit for recovery of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- as damages was filed in High Court (then having exclusive pecuniary jurisdiction) by respondents against the appellants

Appellants/judgment debtors filed written statement

Case was transferred from High Court to the Civil Court due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of civil Courts through amendment

Suit was decreed ex-parte to the extent of 42,00,000/

Respondents filed execution petition

Appellant filed application for setting aside ex-parte judgment/decree which after passing through two rounds of litigation was dismissed by Supreme Court

Thereafter, appellants filed objection petition which was dismissed by Executing Court

Appellants contended that Executing Court of West Division had no territorial jurisdiction as the Civil Court East Division was competent to try the matter keeping in view the police station in which criminal case was registered

Validity

Appellants filed written statement and issues were framed

After framing of issues, appellants did not join the proceedings of the suit, hence the ex-parte decree was passed to the extent of recovery of Rs.42,00,000/

After exhausting all the remedies upto the Supreme Court, appellants filed objection petition on ground of territorial jurisdiction

Appellants had not taken the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction at initial stage, issues were framed in their presence, they neither objected nor filed any petition for framing the issues regarding territorial jurisdiction

After exhausting all the remedies upto the Supreme Court, filing of objection petition at the stage of execution after about 4 years of passing of the judgment/decree by taking absolutely new plea/objection, was not warranted under the law

During the pendency of execution proceedings, the appellants had paid part payment of Rs.9,50,000/- to the decree holder which clearly indicated that appellants had accepted the decree and also made some compliance in the execution proceedings

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Plaintiff sought recovery of damages on the plea that he was wrongly made to face inquiry before NAB where he had to enter into voluntary return

Suit and appeal were concurrently dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Factum of conviction or acquittal had no concern with the matter when plaintiff applied under S.25 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Plaintiff accepted allegations so levelled against him and inquiry/investigation was completed against him

Allegations were levelled against plaintiff and he submitted application under S.25 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent findings against plaintiff, as the same were not suffering from misreading and non-reading of evidence, nor there was any jurisdictional defect or infirmity in judgment of Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant assailed the dismissal of her suit wherein she had claimed damages in respect of false and frivolous suits filed by the respondents coupled with mental torture and tensions, etc

Validity

Appellant had claimed Rs.80 million as damages yet not produced any documentary proof or details of damages caused to her rather only produced documents in respect of pending litigation between the parties

Apart from other questions of fact the suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the appellant herself had not opted to appear before the trial court as witness to prove the contents of plaint

Only appellant could have personally deposed about the alleged damage caused to her reputation while the attorney could not depose about the personal feelings of the appellant

Trial Court while dismissing the suit for damages had rightly observed that the essential ingredients i.e. termination of proceedings in favour of plaintiff, initiation of proceedings without probable cause and causing damages to the appellant were missing

Appeal was dismissed.

Innocent stigmatized by false implication has to carry such irreparable stigma throughout his life span and its shadow on his next generation also leave dark impressions

People make false accusation for having feeling of enmity towards someone being jealous, getting rid of someone, taking revenge or attaining cheap fame

Such people after making false accusation become busy with their matters but the person against whom false accusation has been made falls into disgrace and infamy for the rest of his life.

Trial Court after framing of issues rejected plaint summarily without recording of evidence on the plea that plaintiff did not face prosecution

Validity

Principle governing such type of circumstances was that where issues were framed, parties must be allowed to lead evidence and plaint could not be summarily rejected

Trial Court did not take such principle into account and without recording evidence granted application stating its finding on preliminary issues and rejected the plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.

Such judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was not outcome of fair trial as neither justice was done nor it seemed to have been done

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and remanded same for decision afresh on merits after recording of evidence on issues already framed

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Object of law is to prevent the evil, that is to say, the commission of crime so as to safeguard reputation and dignity of man

Such is possible only when a duty is laid on citizen to state to the authorities what he knows respecting the commission of crime

Duty is thus a primary concept, indeed the main focus of law, which often takes priority over right

For the sake of public justice, charges and communications which would otherwise be slanderous and actionable, are protected if bona fide for prevention of crime.

Foundation of action for damages for malicious prosecution lies not in abuse of process of Court but in abuse of process of law.

Malicious prosecution may be defined as institution of criminal or civil proceedings for an improper purpose and without probable cause

Every criminal prosecution / inquiry which ended with clearing of accused, would not per se entitle such person / accused to file suit for compensation

Successful proceedings initiated under law of malicious prosecution required that original proceedings must have been malicious and without cause

Every person had right to set in motion governmental and judicial machinery for protection of rights but such person should not infringe corresponding rights of others by instituting improper legal proceedings in order commit harassment by way of unjustifiable litigation

To be an actionable tort, prosecution must have been malicious and terminated in favour of plaintiff and mere filing of complaint before police authorities on basis of an allegation was not a "legal wrong" for purpose of suit for malicious prosecution

Courts had to determine whether initiation of prosecution was with reasonable and probable cause and circumstances between parties were to be taken into consideration to determine state of mind of prosecutor and defendant

Mere jealousy and grudges would not be reasonable cause and it was an essential ingredient for a suit for compensation based on malicious prosecution that criminal prosecution against plaintiff were initiated with malice.

Plaintiff sought recovery of damages on the plea that he was falsely involved in a criminal case which caused loss to his business as well to his reputation

Validity

Nature of damages claimed by plaintiff fell within the ambit of general damages and special damages and the same required to be established through cogent and reliable evidence

Mere feeling of resentment in one's own mind was not sufficient to establish general and special damages

To claim mental torture/agony or damage/injury, initial burden was upon plaintiff to lead evidence on such point

Determining general damages for mental torture, agony, defamation and financial losses, those were to be assessed following the 'rule of thumb'

Such exercise was within the discretionary jurisdiction of Court which had to decide in facts and circumstances of each case

High Court in exercise of powers to grant general damages under the rule of thumb, plaintiff was found entitled to grant of partial damages

Suit was decreed accordingly.

Plaintiffs in a suit for malicious prosecution could not recover damages on the basis of humiliation suffered at the hands of police/prison authorities or inmates, but he had a right to be compensated by the person who was the immediate cause of loss and hardship out of false accusation which resulted in incarceration and suffering.

Subjecting a person to malicious prosecution could interfere with the right to liberty guaranteed under Art. 9, the right to dignity under Art. 14 and the right to be treated in accordance with law guaranteed under Art. 4 of the Constitution. Such prosecution would inflict financial hardship, litigation cost, mental anguish as well as loss of reputation on the person who was on its receiving ends having been falsely implicated in a matter.

Appellate Court reduced the amount to Rs. 200,000/- on the basis that the recovery of Rs.5 lacs as compensation to illiterate villager was excessive

Held, that value of a citizen's liberty, dignity and reputation did not rest on whether such person was the resident of a village or an urban area

Reasoning of Appellate Court was invidious, smacked of discrimination of the sort abhorred by the Constitution, protection against which had been guaranteed by Art. 25 of the Constitution

Concurrent Courts agreed that respondents were subjected to malicious prosecution

Order reducing damages was set aside

General cost had been awarded to the respondents as Rs.200,000/- in view of the conduct of the appellant.

Enumerated.

Where no damages were quantified by the plaintiff a court had discretionary jurisdiction to grant damages for loss of liberty/dignity/mental anguish that was reasonably proportionate to what the plaintiff could be presumed to have suffered.

Court (of second appeal) was not vested with jurisdiction to re-quantify damages on its own accord in exercise of powers under S.100 of C.P.C.

No objective standards for estimating injuries could be found but an inference could be drawn that person subjected to malicious prosecution had suffered loss of time, litigation expenses, mental suffering due to penal charges/arrest/putting behind bars, loss of his right to liberty/dignity, and consequent reputational harm.

Prosecution of a criminal offence would only provide a cause for damages for malicious prosecution to the acquitted accused if it was based on malice of the complainant and was without any reasonable and probable cause

Civil case between the parties was pending before Civil Judge

Prosecution of a criminal offence was not without probable and reasonable cause, in circumstances

Plaintiff was acquitted from criminal case on the ground that prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt

Nothing was on record that defendant had involved the plaintiff in criminal case with malice and without probable or reasonable cause

Acquittal of plaintiff from the criminal case was not on merit rather it was on technical ground

Plaintiff was not entitled for any damages, in circumstances

Plaintiff had filed the suit alter lapse of four years which was barred by time

No illegalities or irregularities had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Meanings.

Basic elements on the basis of which suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution could be accepted or rejected detailed:

Criminal case was got registered against the plaintiffs wherein they were acquitted on the basis of concessional statement of defendant

Plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of damages on the basis of malicious prosecution which was decreed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Every criminal case which ended in acquittal of accused would not per se entitle the accused to file a suit for compensation

Remedy of malicious prosecution was available to one who had been wrongly involved/implicated in criminal prosecution

Abuse of civil proceedings might also afford the right to respondent to bring an action for malicious prosecution

Plaintiff who had brought the claim for compensation on account of malicious prosecution should establish the connection between reasonable and probable cause and the malice

Mere fact that plaintiff had been prosecuted and acquitted would not suffice for the purpose of bringing an action for malicious prosecution so long as he had proved absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice

Plaintiff for an action for malicious prosecution to succeed must prove that he had suffered damages/loss as a result of wrongful prosecution

Plaintiffs had been attributed specific role for abduction in the present case and they were found guilty of the offence

Plaintiffs were acquitted due to concessional statements of defendant

Nothing was on record that criminal cases were initiated without any probable cause or same were based on malice

Plaintiffs had failed to establish their case for award of compensation

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.