H N JAYACHANDRA REDDY Vs. MVS NANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material admitted facts are as follows :-Son of the plaintiff one Mahadeva Babu (hereinafter called 'rc holder') was the owner of the lorry bearing No. MYA 6526. State bank of India had financed loan for purchasing the vehicle and there was hire purchase agreement between R. C. holder and the bank. RC holder was unable to make profit from the lorry, therefore, entered into agreement with the defendant to ply the lorry. The possession of the lorry was delivered to the defendant along with R. C. book and insurance certificate. The defendant per contra states that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was advanced to the RC holder. In consideration of which, the vehicle was delivered to the possession of the defendant with some terms and condtions as security for the amount advanced. The defendant alleged to have parked the vehicle in front of his house on the night. On the next day morining, he finds that the vehicle was missing. He suspects the plaintiff and the RC holder have stealthily taken away the vehicle. A complaint was lodged before the basayanagudi police, the police failed to take action. The defendant filed private complaint in PCR No: 41/1975 on the file of the Metropolitan magistrate, IV Court, Bangalore. The magistrate referred the private complaint to police for investigation. The police after investigation, filed B report marked at Ex. P1 stating that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. The RC holder had also filed a suit in O. S. No. 954/75 for permanent injunction prior to filing of the private complaint. The police in the course of investigation, seized the lorry from the RC holder. The plaintiff and the defendant both made an application before the criminal Court for interim custody u/s. 451 Cr. P. The criminal Court after hearing both the parties, granted interim custody to the defendant.

(2.) THE defendant submitted protest petilion to the 'b' report. The Court on the basis of sworn statement of the witnesses, took cognizance and issued summons to the plaintiff and his son. The criminal case went on for about 4 years. The RC holder died during the pendency of the criminal case. On 5-12-85, a criminal complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution since the complainant was absent. The suit is filed seeking damages for malicious prosecution.

(3.) THE trial Court allowed the suit and granted damages of Rs. 30,000/- The defendant being aggrieved by the decree, has filed this appeal.