KOMMALAPATI VENKATADRI Vs. PINNINTI CHANDRAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant appeals against the decree awarding damages for malicious prosecution. The facts are these : The and defendant's shed containing a straw heap was destroyed by fire at about 8 P.M. on 5th December, 1948. At 8 A.M. on 6th December, 1948, the and defendant gave a report to the village-munsif about the occurrence and the latter forwarded it to the nearest police-station. There was an investigation by the police as a result of which the plaintiff, Pinninti Chandrayya and another Kakumani China Somayya were charge-sheeted for an offence under section 436, Penal Code. The accused were discharged by the Magistrate under section 209 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. The present suit was the sequel.

(2.) It was argued by Sri Ramanarasu for the and defendant, here appellant, that he was in no sense the prosecutor and was not liable in damages because he only made a report to the village headman as a result of which the police, after investigation, launched and conducted a prosecution for an offence under section 436, Penal Code, against the plaintiff and another person. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in Narasinga Rao v. Muthayya Filial, (1902) 12 M.L.J. 389 : I.L.R. 36 Mad. 362. as explained by the Judicial Committee in Gaya Prasad v. Bhagat Singh, (1908) 18 M.L.J. 394 ; L.R. 351.A. :8g :I.L.R. 30 All. 525 (P.C.). If the decision in Narasinga Rao v. Muthajya Pillai is to be accepted as good law, it certainly supports the appellant's contention. In my opinion, however, in so far as the decision lays down that no action would lie for damages for malicious prosecution against any person who has not made a formal complaint for process to a Magistrate, it must be held to be erroneous in view of the latter pronouncements of the Judicial Committee. In Gaya Prasad v. Bhagat Singh the Privy Council observed at pages 533 and 534 of the Report as follows :

(3.) In a later case decided by the Judicial Committee in Balbhaddar Singh v. Badri Sah, (1926) 51 M.L.J. 42: I.L.R. 1 Luck, 315 at 227 and 228 (P.C.). Lord Dunedin observed :