SUMAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's claim for compensation is on the basis that the respondent had harassed the petitioner by giving a false complaint on the basis of which the police undertook the investigation and subjected the petitioner to polygraphic test. The police has ultimately found after a year of investigation that the complaint made by the private respondent against the petitioner was not true and that a report had been filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. that there were no circumstances to implicate him for the abetment to suicide. The harassment caused by the police at the instance of the complain by the private respondent is taken to be a ground for a claim for damages.

(2.) A claim for damages resides in the realm of tort. There is no codified law in India and the claim for damages could be pursued only to the extent to which statute provides in any particular legislation or if a claim is made other than a right of enforcement of statutory right, it could be pursued only in the manner that common laws admits of. If a criminal proceeding is undertaken and a person is harassed to the extent that he believes that he has been maliciously prosecuted, the law allows for compensation to be paid for malacious prosecution. In order that a case succeeds under malacious circumstances, three circumstances have to be proved; (i) there shall be a prosecution; (ii) action of the respondent must have been prompted by malice and (iii) the prosecution must have resulted in acquittal. All three must co-exist one after another and they are not mutually exclusive. The term prosecution itself has been the subject of adjudication in several cases. The preponderance of authorities from other Courts namely of Calcutta, Madras and Mysore and matter as decided by the Privy Council is that it shall not merely be a complaint to the police but the complaint must have escalated to the higher stage of institution of a case before a Magistrate, who after a direction for preliminary enquiry could quash the complaint or after a trial, he could have acquitted the person. It is the prosecution of the case before a Criminal Court that qualifies for the expression "prosecution" and not merely a complaint to the police. This is brought out the in "The Law of Torts" by Ramasamy Iyer in Lexis Nexis Edn. The several decisions of the various Courts are paraphrased in the book and for the benefit of the law, I may merely reproduce the decisions of Calcutta High Court as brought out in note 20 at page 457 in Nagendra Nath Vs. Basanta Das, 1929 57 ILR(Cal) 25; Vatappa Vs. Muthukaruppa, 1941 AIR(Mad) 538 , Pemmayya Vs. Kushalappa, 1966 AIR(Mys) 13and a decision of Privy Council in Braja Sunder V. Bamdeb Das, 1944 AIR(PC) 1.

(3.) The petition is without proper cause of action and there is no scope for claim for damages, however, harassed she might feel by the police investigation at the instance of the private respondent. The writ petition is dismissed.