VENKITTU ACHARI Vs. C VAITHIYANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent herein towards damages for malicious prosecution. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he is reputed person of the locality and there was enmity between two groups of persons headed by one Thiru.- Packirisamy Pattar and Thiru. Palani Pattar in regard to the management of Arulmighu Kamakshi Amman Temple. The plaintiff belongs to Thiru Packirisamy Pattar group and the defendant belongs to the said Palani Pattar group. In view of the dispute with regard to the management of the temple, there was enmity between parties and the defendant in order to damage the reputation of the plaintiff launched a false complaint on 17-3-1983 with the police as if the plaintiff and two others used filthy languages against the defendant and on such complaint the plaintiff was arrested at 9.30 p.m. on 17-3-1983 and he was released on bail at 11.00 a.m. on 18-3-1983. The plaintiff further stated in the plaint that on the basis of the false complaint launched by the defendant the police prosecuted the plaintiff under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act which finally ended in acquittal. It was further contended by the plaintiff that there was a reception to the sister of the plaintiff in the evening of 17-3-1983 and the plaintiff's marriage was to be held on 24-3-1983 and in view of the false complaint and the subsequent arrest of the plaintiff had caused damage to his reputation among his relatives and the public and therefore the plaintiff instituted the suit for malicious prosecution seeking for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards damages.

(2.) The defendant while denying the averments made in the plaint, had contended that in fact there was enmity between the two groups as referred to above, the said Packirisamy Pattar was functioninf as the Managing Trustee of the temple and he misappropriated the funds of the temple and therefore he lost faith of his relatives which resulted in his dismissal from the Managing Trustee on 15-8-1976. As against the order of his dismissal as Managing Trustee, the said Packirisamy Pattar filed O.S. No. 326 of 1976 and the same was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S. No. 154 of 1979 was also dismissed. The plaintiff and his father helped the said Packirisamy 'Pattar to conduct the above litigations. Since the suit filed by Packirisamy Pattar was dismissed, the plaintiff sought to interfere with the management of the temple more particularly the functioning of Palani Pattar as Managing Trustee of the temple. Since the said Packirisamy Pattar interfered with the management of the functioing of Palani Pattar as Managing Trustee, "the said Palani Pattar filed O.S. No. 2016 of 1981 and obtained, an interim injunction against Packirisamy Pattar from interfering with the functioning of Palani Pattar in I.A. No. 3185 of 1981. Finally the said suit ended in favour of Palani Pattar and therefore the plaintiff who was with Packirisamy Pattar developed enmities against Palani Pattar and the defendant. Therefore, on 17-3-1983 the plaintiff scolded the defendant with filthy languages. In this regard a message was given to the police through phone. On the basis of such message the Sub Inspectorof Police Cuddalore O.T. Police Station arrived at the spot and he found the plaintiff and two others were creating unscene by using filthy languages. Thereafter the defendant gave a written complaint on 17-3-1983 to the Inspector of Police in respect of what had happened at that time. Therefore the defendant submitted that the complaint was given only in respect of incident that occurred and there was no intention on the 'part of the defendant to defame the plaintiff. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff was acquitted on the ground that offence under Section 75 of Madras City Police Act was not made out as the occurrence took place within the temple premises which is a private place and not in the public place. Therefore the defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) The Trial Court on appreciating the evidence found that the plaintiff has not made out a case for malicious prosecution and consequently dismissed the suit. However, on appeal, the lower appellate Court found that the plaintiff has made out a case for malicious prosecution and accordingly allowed the appeal with a direction, that - the plaintiff is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,000 from the defendant.