DAL CHAND Vs. RAJENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts concerned.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffappellants herein filed a suit for damages and compensation on account of malicious prosecution alleged to have been launched by the defendantrespondents. It was averred in the plaint that one Jagbir was the brother of the plaintiff-appellant No.1 and uncle of the plaintiff-appellants No.2 to 4, who was a co-sharer in possession of 1/12th share in the total land measuring 355 Kanals 13 Marlas Bakadar 29 Kanals 13 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of Village Kithwari, Tehsil and District Palwal. The land of Jagbir was looked after by the plaintiff-appellant No.1 as Jagbir was of a weak mind and used to associate with Sadhus etc. The defendant respondents were aware of the weakness of Jagbir and with a malafide intention confined Jagbir on 31/5/2006. On 15/6/2006 all the defendantrespondents in furtherance of their common intention procured a sale deed of his share on payment of an ostensible sale consideration of Rs.16,66,000..00 As per the recital in the sale deed, the payment was made through a bank transaction, however, later the amount was alleged to have been got transferred by them by opening a new account for Jagbir. It was further averred that plaintiff-appellant No.1, on coming to know of the sale deed, filed a complaint in the Court of Sub-Divisional, Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Palwal on 16/7/2007 and an inquiry was ordered under Sec. 202 CrPC. Since the complaint had been sent to the Station House Officer (SHO), Rs..00City Palwal, the defendant-respondents became aware of the same and immediately filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (JMIC) Palwal under Ss. 364, 323, 506, 342, 347, 348, 384, 386 read with Sec. 34 IPC which was alleged to be totally false and baseless. It was further averred that they have filed a civil suit challenging the validity of the sale deed dtd. 15/6/2006 also. It was further the case set up that the defendant-respondents with the malafide intention dragged the plaintiff-appellants upto the High Court on the point of Court fees. It was further averred that in the criminal case the plaintiff-appellants were acquitted and that they incurred heavy expenses due to the litigation.

(3.) On notice the defendant-respondents appeared and filed their joint written statement raising various preliminary objections qua locus standi, concealment of material facts etc. It was averred in the written statement that an appeal had been preferred in the High Court against the acquittal being CRM-A-322-MA/2013 of 2013 which is still pending. All other allegations were denied.