A K WATTAL Vs. KHAN MOHD SIDIQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Present suit for Rs 25,000 has been lodged in this court by the two plaintiffs -Shri A. K. Wattal and Shri R.N. Duloo -against the defendant, Kh. Mohd. Sidiq as compensation for malicious prosecution.

(2.) THE plaint states that on 1st July 1958 the defendant instituted a criminal prosecution against the plaintiffs under S 420 RPC in the court of ADM Srinagar. The complaint was transferred to the court of the Second Additional Munsiff Srinagar and latter on to the court of the City Magistrate. The City Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 14 -1 -61.A revision was preferred by the defendant against this order of dismissal which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 29 -9 -61. According to the plaintiffs this prosecution on behalf of the defendant was malicious and without any reasonable cause and with false and incorrect allegations and insinuations. The defendant had made assertions against the plaintiffs that they had by fraudulent and deceitful means made him part with money and deprived him of valuable security and thereby cheated him. These allegations were baseless, false and made with a malicious intent. In pursuance of the complaint warrants of arrest were issued against the plaintiffs and they were subjected to harassment, mental torture and huge expense. The defendant knew about the social position of plaintiff No. 1 and of his ill -health. Plaintiff 1 has been holding high positions in life which are detailed in Para (4) of the plaint. On account of this vexatious prosecution the plaintiff 1 further suffered in his health which has since deteriorated, and he has on this account suffered irreparable injury and cost in this criminal prosecution. Plaintiff 1 has also very adversely suffered in his credit fair name, social status, business and programme and has been made to incur heavy cost on account of legal advice, travel, medical treatment etc. Similarly the plaintiff 2 is also described as a man of respect holding a good position in life. The criminal prosecution has also affected his reputation and made him incur a lot of expense.

(3.) A notice for Rs. 20,000 as damages was sent to the defendant, on 25 -6 -62. The defendant did not pay the money claimed. Now the plaintiffs claim Rs. 25,000 on account of compensation. The details of the compensation have not been mentioned in the plaint but have been given in the annexure A to the plaint which reads as under: -