VISHWESHWAR SHANKARRAO DESHMUKH Vs. NARAYAN VITHOBA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the unsuccessful defendants throughout have filed this second appeal being aggrieved by the judgement, dated 19th december, 1990, passed by learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil appeal No. 171 of 1989, whereby the appeal has been dismissed with costs and the judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court on 31st December, 1987 directing both the defendants to pay jointly and severally damages to the tune of rs. 12,500. 00 on account of malicious prosecution has been confirmed. Relevant facts are required to be stated as under : -

(2.) THE respondent (plaintiff) was the Sarpanch of Village Shirputi in the year 1980 and the defendant No. 1 was in the service as Gram Sevak under the Zilla Parishad and the defendant No. 2 was the teacher in the school run by Zilla Parishad. The plaintiff contended that he had made several reports against the defendants about their misconduct. The report was made against defendant No. 1 for his misbehaviour, defalcation and forgery of the accounts, and also against defendant No. 2 for his absence from duties and for other irregularities. It is contended that both the defendants, therefore, hatched the conspiracy to involve the plaintiff in a criminal prosecution and as such the defendant No. 1 had lodged the First Information Report at the Police station on the allegation that he being Public servant, was assaulted by the plaintiff while he was discharging his official duties. On the basis of the First information Report and the investigation conducted by police, offence under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the plaintiff and then the criminal prosecution was launched in the Court of Judicial Magiatrate, First Class, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 1984 of 1980 against the plaintiff. The defendants had examined themselves only in the said criminal prosecution and ultimately the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the plaintiff from the charge levelled against him. It is contended that on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by defendant No. 1, the plaintiff was arrested by Police and the criminal prosecution against him was with malicious intention on the part of the defendants. The criminal prosecution was launched without any reasonable and probable cause and due to the false prosecution, there was a loss in his prestige and reputation and he was lowered down in the eyes of the society being a Sarpanch of the village and being a politician. The plaintiff further contended that he had to attend the various dates in the Criminal Court and incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 2500. 00. He contended that his image was tarnished and, therefore, he has claimed general damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000. 00, thereby making the total claim of rs. 12,500. 00.

(3.) THE defendant No. 1 combated the claim of the plaintiff by filing his written statement and contended that the criminal prosecution launched against the plaintiff was not with malicious intention and that the plaintiff was acquitted for want of evidence after giving him the benefit of doubt. He contended that on 12th august, 1980. When he went to Gram Panchayat Office, the plaintiff did not allow him to open the cupboard and also obstructed and assaulted him and, therefore, he had lodged the First Information Report at the Police Station. He contended that the suit filed for claiming damaged is baseless and is liable to be dismissed. The defendant No. 2 also combated the suit claim by filing his written statement and contended that he did not take active part in the prosecution, except that he was an eye-witness to the incident occurred on 12th August, 1980 and that he did not hatch any plan or conspiracy to launch the criminal prosecution against the plaintiff and the suit is liable to be dismissed against him.