MANGALCHAND CHACHAN Vs. RATANLAL NAHATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.12.1982 passed by the learned District Judge, Karnrup, Guwahati whereby the plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1981 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Barpeta was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff appellant had filed suit for compensation for malicious prosecution on the allegations that he was an old man of about 55 years of age, resident of Barpeta town, having his own business and also had reputation in business circle and society. The defendant had been his tenant in a room of his premises. On 9.6.1978 the defendant falsely, without any reasonable and probable cause had filed a complaint ;n the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta which was sent to O.C., P.S. Sorbhog for investigation. The police on investigation found the case to be false and on 30.6.1978 submitted final report. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 22.7.1978 discharged the plaintiff. The plaintiffs case was that the aforesaid complaint had set the machinery of law into motion and the plaintiff had suffered loss in reputation etc. and hence the defendant was liable for compensation for malicious prosecution. The defendant had resisted the suit and denied the allegations that the complaint was false and without reasonable and probable cause. The learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and held that there was no prosecution of the plaintiff in that the defendant had filed the complaint, the magistrate had sent it to Police for enquiry and on submission of the final report the complaint was closed. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The plaintiffs appeal to the learned District Judge, Kamrup did not succeed. Aggrieved the plaintiff has come in second appeal.

(3.) Shri R.C. Sencheti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the view taken by the learned courts below was erroneous, in that the defendant had lodged the complaint which falsely implicated the plaintiff, in that no offence under Sec. 380 of the Indian Panel Code had been committed for the allegations of removal of supari (betelnut) from the room had been found incorrect by the police on investigation and that after the complaint had come to the police for investigation and then police was investigating the allegations in the complaint, the plaintiff had surrendered before the learned magistrate and obtained bail and thus the plaintiffs reputation had suffered. The plaintiff was therefore prosecuted and was entitled to damages for the injury that had resulted to him. Shri Sencheti, learned counsel for the appellant has cited Md. Amin Vs. Jagendra Kumar Bannerji, 51 CWN 723 wherein the Privy Council had held that the test in such matters is not whether proceeding had reached a stage at which they may correctly be described as prosecution but the test was whether the proceedings had reached a stage where injury to the plaintiff may result. Ramesh Chandra Basu Mazumdar Vs. Brojendra Nath Paul, AIR 1950 Cat. 259 and D. Rattanji Karvi Vs. Bombay Municipality, AIR 1945 Bombay 320 were also cited.