DAULAT SINGH Vs. SUJAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant defendant has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Guna, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge Class -1, Guna, for malicious prosecution under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, altering the amount of damages to Rs. 652.50 instead of Rs. 862.50 awarded by trial Court.

(2.) SHRI U.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, raised two contentions: - -that complaint under section 107, Cr. P. C. was dismissed for want of evidence and as such, there was no cause of action for plaintiffs. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of Madras High Court in Sanjivi Reddi v. Kondagari Koneri Reddi : AIR 1926 Mad. 521, Other contention raised is that the proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C. are not penal in nature. Therefore, the suit could not have been decreed by the trial Court for Rs. 862.50 and the appellate Court could not have altered the decree to the extent of Rs. 562.52, because there was no prosecution for the offence as proceedings under S. 107, Cr. P. C. do not involve any such prosecution resulting in conviction or acquittal and termination of these proceedings in favour of a plaintiff does not give rise to any cause of action for a suit for malicious prosecution.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel and perusing the records of the case, 1 am of the opinion that this appeal has no merit. As regards the first contention, the decision of the Madras High Court in Sanjivi Reddi (supra) is of no help. In that case the petitioners were put to trial under the proceedings initiated under section 107, Cr.P.C. but the proceedings were dropped without notice to the plaintiff and, therefore, it was held that plaintiff had no cause of action for malicious prosecution. In the present case, the plaintiffs were noticed, they showed cause and defended the action but appellant defendant even after several opportunities, did not produce any evidence, and for want of evidence the case initiated at the instance of defendant under section 107, Cr.P.C. was dismissed and the proceedings so initiated were terminated in favour of the plaintiffs.