SHIV SHANKAR PATEL Vs. PHULKI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. The applicant is aggrieved by an order dated 27.04.2006 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 2-B of 2003 affirming the order dated 16.06.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 4-B of 2002 by Civil Judge Class-I, Saraipali granting compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for malicious prosecution launched by the applicant against the Respondents.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that on 02.11.90 the applicant herein lodged F.I.R. against the Respondents regarding theft of crops from lands Kh. No. 36/2, 36/3 and 36/8 situated in village Chandibhona. Vide judgment dated 07.10.1998 passed by the Criminal Court, the Respondents herein were acquitted while recording a clear finding that Respondent No. 1 - Phulki Bai had sown the crops harvested by her and the said crops were also returned to Phulki Bai. It was also noticed that a civil suit relating to title was pending between the parties prior to lodging of the F.I.R. by the Appellant.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant argued that the mere fact of acquittal in a criminal prosecution launched by the police does not ipso facto make the criminal prosecution malicious unless malice is established. Reliance was placed on Indra Bhan Singh v. Ram Milan 1984 MPWN 178, Wahid v. K.N. Pathak 1999 (1) MPWN 115, Kutubuddin v. Isharat Begum and Ors. 2006 (11) MPWN 94, Bharat Bhushan v. Chandra Mohan 1982 JLJ 135, Mewalal v. State of M.P. 1996 (11) MPWN 82 and Smt. Sovarani Dutta v. Debabrat Dutta : AIR 1991 Cal 186. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents while arguing in support of the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.04.2006 placed reliance on Ramsingh v. Gulabsingh 1981 (1) MPWN 82. Having heard the rival contentions and after perusing the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2-B of 2003, I am of the considered opinion that this Civil Revision is liable to be dismissed. In an action for malicious prosecution the Plaintiff must prove: