PRADEEP JAIN Vs. M.D.TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 31/10/2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by 4th Additional District Judge Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 1235615- ?/2011 whereby the compensation of Rs.1,75,69,542.00 claimed by the appellant regarding malicious prosecution, was dismissed. The parties to this appeal shall be referred herein as per their description before the learned trial Court.

(2.) Before the learned trial Court, it is pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 was posted as SHO in Police Station- Supela and deceased defendant R.K. Rai was posted as ASI and defendant R.P. Sharma was posted as Superintendent of Police. A false case under Sec. 304-B of IPC was registered against the plaintiff because of the death of the wife of the plaintiff's younger brother, due to which the plaintiff wrote many letters against the police officers to get justice and it was also published in newspapers. Due to which, the defendants had enmity towards the plaintiff and he was implicated in a false Narcotic Drugs Act. On 28/12/1994, the plaintiff was brought from his house to Police Station Supela along with his wife Sadhna Jain. The next day the plaintiff's wife was sent to Police Station Bhilai Nagar Sector-6. But with the purpose of implicating him in a false case, the plaintiff was kept in Police Station Supela. While the plaintiff was in police lockup, deceased defendant R.K. Rai came and threatened him that he would be implicated in a false case for writing against the police. As a result of the said threat, the plaintiff was implicated in a false case under Sec. 18 of the NDPS Act by showing that 180 grams of opium was seized from him. The defendants, in order to show that they had nothing to do with the incident, showed that the area from where the seizure was made, was another police station area so that the challan could be presented from another police station. Further, a false story was fabricated to trap the plaintiff that information was received from an informer that the plaintiff was selling opium near Shaheed Bhagat Singh School, Titurdih on 29/12/1994 and a raid was conducted and 180 grams of opium was seized from him. Showing the case to be of Titurdih, the case was transferred to Police Station Mohannagar for further investigation and a chargesheet was filed against the plaintiff by Police Station Mohannagar. During the trial, it was clear before the Court that on 28/12/1994, the plaintiff was in the custody of Police Station Supella and the evidence presented by the defendants was doubtful. Thereafter, on 7/6/1997, the plaintiff was acquitted in that case by the Sessions Court. In the judgment, it was ordered that action be taken against the defendant No.1 under Sec. 241 of Cr.P.C. for misuse of his powers and improper conduct. Although the plaintiff was acquitted, he remained in jail for 893 days. Before being in custody, the plaintiff used to run a dairy farm. The animals living in it, died while he was in his custody and the plaintiff's business was completely ruined. The plaintiff used to sell 'Bhari', papad and spices. He used to do farming on land in village Dhamdha and Basin in Regha, from which he earned money. While being in custody, all the sources of income of the plaintiff ended. The BSP administration demolished the plaintiff's dairy farm, due to which, the plaintiff lost all his income. The total loss incurred in all the items was Rs.1,75,69,542.00. Hence, this claim has been filed by the plaintiff for the said compensation amount along with interest.

(3.) In their written statement, defendants No. 1 and 2 denied all the main allegations of the claim and stated that the plaintiff was arrested while selling opium in front of witnesses. The prosecution which was presented against the plaintiff was not done by the defendants. The plaintiff was acquitted by the Court in the criminal case due to procedural error and lack of required prosecution in the case. The defendants had no malice in prosecuting the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not obtain any prior sanction from the State Government for the prosecution of the defendants who are public servants. The claim petition filed by the plaintiff, is time barred. In such a situation, it is prayed to dismiss the claim filed by the plaintiff.