CHANAN SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which arises for determination in this appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated 23.2.1980 is as to whether there is proof of malice and also proof of absence of reasonable and probable cause for launching prosecution by the defendant-respondent by filing complaint under Section 325, Indian Penal Code against the plaintiff- appellant so as to award damages for malicious prosecution to the plaintiff. Unless these two requirements of law are satisfied, it is not possible to sustain the claim of the plaintiff-appellant for damages for malicious prosecution.

(2.) THE facts of the case necessary to decide the appeal are that defendant- respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the defendant) initiated criminal prosecution against the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiff) under Section 325 Indian Penal Code by filing a complaint on 29.6.1971 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura. The plaintiff alleged that the complaint was filed by the defendant against him without any reasonable cause and the filing of complaint was actuated by mala fide intention because a civil suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and others regarding the flow of water to his residential house was dismissed. It is averred that in order to take revenge against the plaintiff, the defendant filed a false and frivolous complaint against the plaintiff alongwith one Joginder Singh. The complaint was dismissed on 13.12.1973 and the plaintiff was discharged. It is claimed by the plaintiff that because of the malicious prosecution by the defendant, he had suffered pecuniary damages as well as loss of reputation in the village. It is also claimed that he suffered mental and bodily pain which was a natural consequence of the malicious act of the defendant. An amount of Rs. 500/- has been claimed by way of general damages and also special damages for having defended the complaint filed by the defendant on 24 dates by engaging a counsel. A further claim of Rs. 15/- per day for loss of business suffered has been claimed as the plaintiff is a carpenter. In this manner he has claimed a total amount of Rs. 1,000/- as damages from the defendant.

(3.) THE trial Court after recording the evidence felt persuaded to hold that the defendant had filed a false complaint against the plaintiff and maliciously prosecuted him. Discussion by the trial Court on this issue is available in paragraph 9 which reads as under :