PAWAN KUMAR Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 2112 and 2113 of 2003 because in both the cases the challenge is to the common judgment and same question of fact and law is involved. The defendants have filed the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the defendant-appellants have maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff-respondent with an oblique motive as they had filed a false criminal case against him under Sections 342/448/450/506/34 IPC. In the complaint filed before the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate it has been concluded in the judgment dated 3.2.1996 (Ex. P-1) that there was no iota of evidence to implicate the plaintiff-respondent in any matter nor any witness had appeared to testify the prosecution version. Eventually, the plaintiff-respondent was acquitted.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rupees one lac as compensation and damages for malicious prosecution against the defendant-appellant alleging that on 7.11.1989 the father of the defendant-appellants filed a complaint under Sections 342/448/450/506/34 IPC. It was alleged that the plaintiff-respondent along with certain police officials tres-passed in the house of Ravi Dutt, the father of the defendant- appellant and was armed with lathi. The other accused were alleged to be armed with revolvers. The prosecution version was that Surat Singh, SHO, Jagdev Singh, ASI had threatened the complainant with dire consequence and they locked up his house and took him to police station. The plaintiff-respondent also alleged that at that time and place he was not even present and a false and wrong complaint was filed against him and others with an intention to damage the reputation of the plaintiff-respondent who is aged about 80 years. During the pendency of proceedings before the criminal Court father of the defendant-appellant Ravi Dutt had died. However, the defendant-appellant who intended to cause loss and damage to the plaintiff-respondent substituted themselves for the continuation of the complaint. On 10.3.1992 both the defendant-appellants as well as the complainant had appeared as a witness in the criminal complaint. The trial ended in equittal of the plaintiff- respondent vide judgment dated 3.2.1996 and plaintiff therefore claimed damages for malicious prosecution to the tune of rupees one lac by filing civil suit.

(3.) SHRI Neeraj Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has argued that heavy reliance has been placed by the Courts below on the judgment delivered by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala dated 3.2.1996 (Ex. P-1). According to the learned counsel no fact constituting the right to seek damages by malicious prosecution have been proved before the Civil Court by adducing cogent evidence. Learned counsel has maintained that all the four ingredients constitute the right to seek damages for malicious prosecution have been proved. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. v. Surender Nath Shukla and others, AIR 1966 SC 388.