SRI NIWAS SHUKLA Vs. DINESH BAL DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for recovery of damages on the ground of his having been maliciously prosecuted by the defendant. A criminal complaint was filed in the court of Sri J. Chandra, Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow by the respondent, Dinesh Bal Dubey against Sri Krishna Shukla and Sri Niwas Shukla, the latter being the appellant before me. It was alleged in the complaint, inter alia, that the respondent Dinesh Bal Dubey was a tenant of certain accommodation in the first floor of Shukla Niwas, Golaganj, Lucknow of which Sri Krishna Shukla was said to be the landlord. It was further alleged that in a portion of that building the two accused persons also lived. Sri Krishna Shukla wanted to eject the respondent from that accommodation ; hence he got the suit filed through his wife in the Civil Court seeking that relief. But, not contended with that he started adopting other methods of harassment to secure the object. With that end in view the electric connection given in the accommodation of the respondent was got disconnected. The respondent then obtained certain order from the State Government for fixation of separate electric meter. It so happened that on 30th August, 1974 at about 9.00 a. m. while the respondent was getting electric wire laid on the wall for having a separate meter installed for his accommodation the accused No. 1 Sri Krishna Shukla unlawfully interfered with his work and abused and threatened him. In para 9 of the complaint, certified copy of which is Ex. 8 it was also alleged that the accused No. 1 showed the gun and said that he would finish the life of the complainant with gun shot if he proceeded in his work. In para 10 it was alleged that the complainant called for help and the witnesses who reached the spot saved his life. They wanted to pacify the accused No. 1 but he went on abusing and saying that he would finish the life of the complainant. In para 11 it is alleged that the accused persons used criminal force against the complainant and wanted to disturb the peace. On these allegations both the accused persons were sought to be prosecuted for an offence under Sections 352/504 and 506, IPC. The witnesses were examined in that criminal complaint case on behalf of the complainant who is the respondent in this appeal. The learned Magistrate on an appraisal of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances came to the conclusion that no case against the accused had been made out which, if unrebutted, could warrant their conviction. The accused were, therefore, discharged u/Sec. 233 (1) CrPC and the complaint was dismissed. A certified copy of that order is Ext. 9. On the termination of that criminal case the appellant filed the suit for recovery of damages on the ground that he was maliciously prosecuted which caused monetary loss and mental pain to him.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective versions. THE trial court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 1245/- as damages for malicious prosecution. Against that decision an appeal was preferred by the defendant. THE appellate court below on reappreciation of the evidence reversed the finding recorded by the trial court, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial court. THE plaintiff has now come to this court on second appeal.

(3.) THERE is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismised with costs. Appeal dismissed.