RAMJILAL SHARMA Vs. MEERA SHIVHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the applicants have assailed the validity of the order dated 16.3.2011 passed by the trial Court, by which, the application preferred by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of the revision, briefly stated, are that the non-applicant filed a suit seeking the relief of damages on account of malicious prosecution. It was pleaded that the non-applicant was posted as Assistant Teacher at Government Girls College. On 16.4.2005, on the basis of a complaint filed by applicants, offences under sections 353, 448, 506-B and 294 of the Indian Penal Code were registered against the non-applicant. Thereafter, a challan was filed and charges were framed under sections 353, 448 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court vide judgement dated 05.2.2008 convicted the non-applicant under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/-. Against the judgment dated 05.2.2008 the appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, which was allowed and the non-applicant was acquitted. It was also averred that the applicant with malafide intention of defaming the non-applicant instituted malicious proceeding against her, due to which, she suffered mental pain and suffering and accordingly claimed damages to the tune of Rs.2 lacs in the suit.

(3.) The applicants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, on the ground that applicants are saved by absolute privilege as the complaint made, deposition made, etc. were made under the administration of justice. It was also pleaded that in the application that non-applicant had entered into compromise with applicant No.4 on 16.6.2005 and thereupon by order dated 02.9.2005, application for recording compromise was accepted and the nonapplicant was acquitted of the offence under section 506- B of the Indian Penal Code against applicant No.4 and no offence under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the non-applicant. However, the aforesaid facts have been suppressed in the plaint. The trial Court, however, vide impugned order held that the averments stated in the application cannot be deciced without recording the evidence. Accordingly, the trial Court rejected the application.