RAMESH CHANDRA SINGH MOHAPATRA Vs. JAGANNATH SINGH MOHAOATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution is the appellant. The sole defendant in the suit is his father.

(2.) Plaintiff claimed damages of Rs. 10,000/- for 'much mental agony and pain due to false accusation by the defendant resulting in loss of education of the plaintiff who was then reading at Cuttack', and a sum of Rs. 250/towards special damages as described in Sch. A that is to say Rs. 150/- the sum paid to the lawyer in defending himself in the alleged false prosecution, Rs. 50/- towards miscellaneous expenses and another sum of Rs. 50/towards expenses in attending Court. His averments in the plaint leading to his aforesaid claim may be stated briefly- The defendant made false allegations before the police, Mahulpali Police Station in the month of April and June, 1962 that 'the plaintiff and his elder brother were creating disturbance by quarrelling with him, threatening him to take possession of his properties by driving him out from the house and further threatening him to take away his life'. Pursuant to these false allegations the officer-in-charge of Mahulpali police station sent a report to the S. D. O. whereupon a proceeding under Section 107, Criminal P. C. was initiated against him, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 42 of 1962. The defendant took active part in this proceeding in prosecuting the plaintiff by engaging a lawyer and tendering perjured evidence and played the role of the real prosecutor. The plaintiff however was ultimately discharged, but prior to its initiation the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant had been embittered due to the former squandering away the joint family properties and making a demand for partition of the same. The plaintiff further avers that the defendant's accusation against him was without reasonable and probable cause and was actuated by malice.

(3.) The defence was that since 1960 the two sons of the defendant were constantly demanding money from him and as he failed to comply with the said demand a strained feeling developed between him and his sons. At times he was forced to alienate some of the joint family properties to meet the educational expenses of the plaintiff, and even then his sons were objecting to such transfers. The plaintiffs' feeling towards the defendant was so much embittered that he had no compunction in publicly declaring the defendant to be insane and sticking public notices to that effect in the village and also publishing that fact in Ganatantra daily newspaper. The plaintiff indulged in various acts of goondaism in the house of which mention has been made of an act of breaking open the lock of the house in the absence of the defendant on 13-6-1962 and 16-6-1962. The defendant who was 62 years of age at the time was so harassed that the villagers took notice of it and reported to the police regarding the Defendants, piteous condition. In the circumstances, even though the defendant lodged information of these high handed actions of the plaintiff to the police, he could not be held to be a prosecutor. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.