SOVA RANI DUTTA Vs. DEBABRATA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-11-84 passed by Sri S. Seal, Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Money Appeal No.10 of 1980 modifying the decree dated 16/09/1980 passed by Sri B.N. Chandra, Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Money Suit No.8 of 1977.

(2.) Plaintiff Debabrata Dutta, filed Money Suit No.8 of 1977 against the defendant Smt. Sovarani Dutta claiming damages for malicious prosecution valued at Rs. 104.00. His case is that on 23-10-76, at 18.10 hours the defendant lodged a First Information Report in the District of Hooghly on an willful false charge of theft of ear-ring from the person of the defendant against the plaintiff and her sister Smt. Biva Bati Dutta. The defendant knew the statements made in her First Information Report to be completely false and she maliciously made those statements before the police to implicate the plaintiff and her sister in a false criminal case and to defame and injure the plaintiff and to satisfy the defendant's grudge on the plaintiff. In pursuance of the said false information, the police arrested the plaintiff and his sister and detained them in hazat on 23-10-76. The plaintiff and his sister were taken to the thana and the people of the locality looked on them as object of ridicule. The plaintiff and his sister were detained in the police hazat from II p.m. (night) on 23-10-76 up to 11.30 a.m. on 24-10-76 the plaintiff was brought to the hazat of the Sub-Divisional Officer's Court building with hand-cuff and rope tied around his waist in broad day light through public road and again on the same day the plaintiff was brought from the S.D.O.'s Court building before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore with hand-cuff and rope tied around his waist and the plaintiff and his sister were bailed on P. R. Bonds. On the basis of the said false First Information Report, a case was registered at the police station, P. S. Case being No.17 dated 23-10-76 and the same was converted as G. R. Case No.659 of 1976 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandernagore (Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore). The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate ordered for filing investigation report on 10-1-77. However, police could complete the investigation before that date and on 21-12-76 submitted investigation report to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore after investigating the charge of offence against the accused, that is, the plaintiff and his sister. While submitting the final report, the Investing Officer stated that the complaint by the defendant was false and so the Investigating Officer prayed in the final report for permission to prosecute the plaintiff/ defendant under Ss.182/ 211, I.P.C. and also prayed for discharging the accused. The plaintiff was mishandled by the police and due to the said agony and sudden shock for the false arrest and indictment made by the defendant, the plaintiff swooned in the premises of the thana hazat on 23-10-76. On the basis of the final report submitted by the police, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 10-1-77, discharged the accused persons and ordered to prosecute the complainant (i.e., the defendant) under Ss. 182/ 211, I.P.C. The plaintiff further avers that he is a man of reputation and that his academic career is brilliant all through and at present he is a permanent teacher of Durga Chandra Rakshit Banga Vidyalaya, Chandernagore. The defendant acted maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause and in consequence of the prosecution launched by the defendant, he had suffered pain in the body and mind and was prevented from transacting his business and was injured in his credit. The plaintiff was also defamed by the malicious act of the defendant. The plaintiff had to incur expenses of Rs. 104.00 in obtaining his release from the hazat and defending himself in that prosecution and the plaintiff has been lowered in the estimation of people as a false colour is given to the plaintiff as a criminal. So the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming Rs. 10,000.00 for damages for pain in body and mind and for loss of business and reputation and Rs. 104.00 as damages for expenses incurred in the Criminal Court and prayed for decreeing the suit against the defendant.

(3.) Defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing a written statement in which she has denied all the allegations brought against her by the plaintiff. Her case is that she had not lodged any false information to the police. She did not make any statement before the police or in the F.I.R. in order to defame the plaintiff or to satisfy any alleged grudge on the plaintiff. She reported to the police the real incident and thereafter she had no hand in the matter. It was the police who took up and proceeded with the case. The plaintiff was taken to police station by the police as they found materials against the plaintiff to proceed with. She had no hand in the matter of taking of the plaintiff to the police station and it is denied that the people of the locality looked to the plaintiff as an object of ridicule or passed any disgraceful comments. It is denied that the plaintiff suffered any anguish or shame due to the alleged comments of the people. It is not known to her if the plaintiff was detained in police hazat from 11 p.m. on 23-10-76 to 11.30 a.m. on 24-10-76. It is denied that any proceeding was initiated by her by lodging any malicious false F. I. R. This is the sum and substance of the defendant's case.