SATDEO PRASAD Vs. RAM NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants. They have appealed from the concurrent decisions of the Court below dismissing their suit for damages for malicious prosecution on the ground that they had failed to prove that the criminal case instituted by defendant 1 was maliciously false and without reasonable and probable cause.

(2.) Admittedly, Plot 184 was a Gair-mazarua-am ditch, and water, which accumulated therein, was used for irrigating the adjoining lands. Plaintiffs alleged that the fishery right in the said ditch was never settled with anybody; but the defendants said that it is true so long Zamindari remained there was never any settlement of fishery right but since after the vesting of the estate, the State of Bihar began to settle the fishery right, year after year, and, at the time of the occurrence, which was on 24-4-1960, defendant 1 was the settlee from the State of Bihar.

(3.) Defendant 1 lodged a first information report with police to the effect that on 24-4-1960. the plaintiffs were stealing fish of the ditch, which he had taken settlement of from the State of Bihar, and, therefore, the plaintiffs had committed an offence of theft under Section 379 I. P. C. The plaintiffs were put on trial, but the criminal court acquitted the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for damages for malicious prosecution which has been dismissed by both the courts below, as stated above.