(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants arising out of a suit for damages for initiating malicious proceedings against the plaintiff. It may be pointed out that the plaint referred to the words 'Abhiyog' and 'Vibhagiya Karwahi' as the basis of the suit. It does not make any mention of either arrest or criminal prosecution. THE Courts below have not been able to distinguish between a malicious prosecution and malicious proceedings though damages may be claimed on the basis of either. THE main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as in the instant case the plaintiff has not been prosecuted in any criminal court nor any such proceedings have been taken against him he was not entitled to maintain the suit for malicious prosecution. It is true that in para 3 of the additional pleas of the written statement it was specifically mentioned that no proceedings before any criminal court were taken nor any criminal law was set into motion the suit was not maintainable. THE trial Court did not frame any issue on the point. THE lower appellate Court also mentioned the point in a half hearted manner and did not decide in accordance-with law.
(3.) WHAT happened in the instant case was that the plaintiff was the Pradhan of the village. The defendants were the members of the Gaon Sabha or residents of village concerned. They moved several applications before the Sub-Divisional Officer and other authorities complaining irregularities committed by the plaintiff in discharge of his duties as Pradhan. Enquiry was initiated against the plaintiff, Pradhan, under section 95 (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. In those enquiries the Sub-Divisional Officer-found that the complaints were false and malicious. No charge was proved against the plaintiff. It was further found that some of the alleged misconducts were manipulated by the defendant Bhagwan Dutta himself. With these remarks the plaintiff was exonerated from the charges.