EDISON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.123 of 1993 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. He filed the suit for malicious prosecution against the 2nd defendant, Ajay Ghosh, son of Madhavan, the then C.I of Police, Kattakada Police Station in his official capacity. The court below dismissed the suitfinding that the same was barred by limitation under Section 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act, in short, "the Act". Hence this appeal, challenging the same.

(2.) The brief facts required for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff and one Susi George of Kattakada were neighbours. The husband of the latter was employed abroad. He subsequently died there. Susi George sought the aid and assistance of the plaintiff for her dealings in the property and in some of her other transactions. Because of the difference of opinion, that arose between them, she gave a complaint before the C.I. of Police, Kattakada police station, who in turn, summoned the plaintiff to the Station and asked him to enter into a settlement. This was resisted and resented by the plaintiff.. He, therefore, gave Ext.A8 complaint to the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, which led to the filing of Ext.XI report by the Grievance Cell Team of the Police Department headed by PW4, the then Dy. S.P. of Police. As per the proceedings for the conduct of an enquiry, in the Grievance Cell, another police officer who was working under PW4, issued a notice, Ext. A6, directing the plaintiff to appear before the Grievance Cell at 11 a.m. on 28.10.1991. After knowing the move of the plaintiff through the Director General of Police and Grievance Cell of the Police Department, it is alleged, the defendant issued Ext.A5 notice directing the plaintiff to appear before him at 3 a.m. on 28.10.1391 itself. The plaintiff informed about Ext.A8 notice to PW4. The latter asked his subordinate police officer to ask the defendant not to summon him at 3 a.m. on 28.10,1331 and instead summon him on any other day. The direction of PW4 was conveyed to the defendant, as revealed through the evidence of PW4. But, despite the information, the defendant had filed a petty case against the plaintiff under Section 174 IPC before the JFCM, Kattakada. It was proceeded according to law. The plaintiff defended the case as an accused. Ext.A7 is the proceedings paper in Section T.336 of 1992 of Kattakkada Magistrate Court. It shows that the plaintiff appeared on 11.3.1332 before the Magistrate Court and bail was granted. Thereafter, there had been number of postings. As the Magistrate court could not procure the presence of the complainant, the defendant, the accused, the plaintiff, was acquitted.

(3.) Ext.XI is a report filed by the police officer who investigated the entire matter that was brought before the Director General of Police. It reveal that the defendant had forced the plaintiff to sign an agreement in favour of Susi George and had deliberately filed a petty case against the plaintiff, under Section 174 IPC. It was thereafter that the plaintiff filed the original suit claiming an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as damages and cost for filing a Writ Petition before the High Court, for defending the criminal case and for prosecuting the civil case. A written statement had been filed by the defendant denying all the allegations made against him, personal as well as acted in his official capacity. The State also filed separate written statement. The trial court framed five issues in answer to which the plaintiff examined four witnesses and marked nine documents. Defendants examined three witnesses and marked three documents. Exts.Xl and XI (a) were also marked.