DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Darshan Singh has filed this suit claiming damages to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/ - from the defendants, as damages on account of malicious prosecution and defamation etc.

(2.) Facts constituting the cause of action, as disclosed in the pliant, may be summed up thus. The plaintiff was recruited as a constable in Police Department of erstwhile State of Punjab in the year 1960. On the re -organization of the said State in the year 1966, the services of the plaintiff were allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh. Because of his sincerity, honesty and devotion to the duty, he had been getting promotions on time till the year 1993. In 1993 he was in the rank of Inspector. In June 1992 he was posted as S.H.O., Police Station, Gagret by respondent No.2, who was then working as Superintendent of Police at Una. Later on, in March, 1993 defendant No.2 posted the plaintiff as S.H.O., Police Station, Una, to bring about improvement in deteriorating law and order situation and also to curb criminal and antisocial activities. During his posting as S.H.O., Police Station, Gagret and S.H.O., Police Station, Una, the plaintiff earned good reputation, because he brought about qualitative improvement in law and order situation and the graph crime also came down. He was given several awards and certificates for various acts during the aforesaid period. Defendant No.4,who indulged in gambling and Para Satta within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Una, found it impossible to continue to indulge in his illegal activities because of the effective check and highly efficient working of the plaintiff. Said defendant No.4 had been indulging in the aforesaid illegal activities because of the patronage of high police officials, to whom he used to pay fixed amount of money at regular intervals. When he could not operate his illegal trade of Dara Satta, on account of the effective control and check by the plaintiff and incidentally did not pay the money to the high police officials, including defendants No.2 and 3, a conspiracy was hatched by defendants No.2 to 4 to falsely implicate the plaintiff in a criminal case. In furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy, defendant No.4 made a false statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he had paid rupees one lac as gratification to the plaintiff for running the illegal business of Dara Satta. On the basis of that statement, a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and some provisions of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the plaintiff. He was placed under suspension. He had to seek anticipatory bail. During the course of investigation of the said FIR., plaintiffs bank accounts were checked and inquiry into his assets was also made. Nothing incriminating was found and ultimately the case had to be cancelled. The District Attorney, Una made a recommendation for the cancellation of the case. The Special Judge, Una, accepting that recommendation, ordered the cancellation of the case. Soon after the registration of the case, defendants No.2 and 3 started issuing show cause notices to the plaintiff. They also recorded adverse entries in his annual confidential reports, with a view to harming him. Departmental proceedings were also initiated, which remained pending till a day proceeding the date of his retirement, i.e. 31.3.1998. Because of the aforesaid lodging of the false FIR, the plaintiff suffered Heat attack in October, 1993 and remained under a lot of tension and strain, which affected his physical health also. Besides, he suffered in his reputation. His credibility also got lowered. Even his friends and relatives started suspecting his truthfulness, sincerity and integrity. He has claimed Rs.14,80,000/ -towards general damages and Rs.20,000/ - on account of special damages (the break up of such special damages is expenses on medical treatment Rs.30,00/ -and interest at the rate of 18% on the with -held 50% portion of salary during the period of suspension amounting to Rs.17,000/ -. The cause of action is alleged to have accrued initially on 15.10.1993, when a false report was lodged by defendant No. 4, then on 29.7.1995, when the plaintiff made some representations to the Director General of Police, then on 15.7,1997, when the Sessions Judge, Una ordered the cancellation of the case and finally on 30.3.1998, when all the departmental proceedings, initiated against the plaintiff, terminated.

(3.) Separate written statements have been filed by defendants No.1 to 4, while defendants No.2 and 3 have filed a joint written statement. All the defendants have raised preliminary objections that the suit is barred by time, it is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, it is bad for mis -joinder of causes of action, it is not maintainable and is false and frivolous.