P PURUSHOTHAMA BHAT Vs. P BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O. S. No. 122 of 1991 of the Sub Court, Kasargode challenge the judgment and decree dated 10. 8. 1995 passed against them. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed for recovery of damages on the ground of malicious prosecution.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellants, on 16. 1. 1990, the first respondent/defendant filed a criminal complaint before the Badiadka Police falsely implicating them for the offence punishable under Section 436 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that the respondents had set fire to the dwelling house of the appellants and had thereby committed mischief by fire. First information was given by respondents 2 to 4. On the basis of the statement given by the respondents, the case was taken on file and was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasargode as S. C. No. 29 of 1990. After trial, the Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants/accused. The appellants alleged that they were prosecuted by the respondents maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause. According to them, the respondents have actively taken part in the efforts to procure a conviction against the appellants. They alleged that they were prosecuted by the respondents only out of enmity. The respondents gave statements before the police and evidence before the court with the full awareness that the said statements and evidence were false. The appellants suffered mental agony and physical strain on account of the prosecution. They had spent Rs. 5000/- for conducting the case. They claimed a further amount of rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and a further amount of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of reputation. Thus, the appellants claimed a total amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.

(3.) THE respondents/defendants filed joint written statement denying the allegations made against them and contended that the first respondent had given true information to the Badiadka police and the other respondents had given true and correct statements before the police. They also submitted that the evidence given by them were true. The appellants were not prosecuted by them out of malice. They denied that the complaint was given by them without reasonable and probable cause. The appellants have not suffered any loss of reputation and therefore their claim for damages was without any basis. According to the respondents, they are poor illiterate harijans, against whom the appellants have been filing suits or complaints with a view to drive them away from their property. The suit was filed only to harass the defendants. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.