Suit for damages alleging malicious prosecution. Simply because the accused/plaintiff was acquitted, that cannot be a ground to hold the prosecution as malicious in nature..

In the Court of the Principal Civil Judge at Davanagere.
Shri. Sameer G Kolli, B.A.L., LL.B., Principal Civil Judge 
Original Suit 32/2012, decided on 1 December 2021
A. Basavarajappa vs Jasteen Desouza

Issue: Whether   the   plaintiff   proves   that defendant has prosecuted the plaintiff maliciously in C.C. 1539/2002 ?

9. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant herein had lodged an information against the plaintiff   in   Rural   police   station,   Davangere.   On   the strength of said complaint, enquiry was held and later on   ‘B’   Final   Report   was   filed.   The   defendant   herein contested   ‘B’   Final   Report   by   filing   protest   petition. Thereafter,   cognizance   was   taken   and   process   was issued.  Later on, the court acquitted the plaintiff who was an accused in the said case.  By reason of the said prosecution,   the   plaintiff   has   suffered   physically, mentally and financially. Hence, this suit.

13. Learned counsel for the defendant  has  submitted during his arguments that the plaintiff who was accused No.3   in   CC   No.   1539/2002   was   acquitted   by   giving benefit of doubt and it is not a clear acquittal given by the court.  He further submitted that PW­1 has admitted in his cross examination with respect to earlier property dispute   between   defendant   and   himself   and   only because the complaint was filed, it cannot be termed to be a malicious prosecution. He further submitted that as there   was   merit   in   the   complaint,   the   court   took cognizance of the offences alleged against plaintiff and others and issued process.   Thereafter, he submitted that when plaintiff is acquitted by assigning the reason of benefit of doubt, no malicious intent is made out. Thus, he has prayed for dismissal of the suit.

15. At the outset, the plaintiff in order to show that there was malicious prosecution by the defendant, has not   produced   any   material   on   record   except   his   self serving testimony.   The main ingredients of malicious prosecution are stated thus:­

a) the prosecution has been initiated by the defendant,

b) the prosecution was baseless without any reasonable cause,

c) the prosecution has been ended in his favour,

d) the defendant acted with malicious intent,

e) the plaintiff has suffered damage or injury.

16. It   is   to   be   noted   that   when   a   person   with   a malicious   intention   institutes   wrongful   criminal proceedings against someone without probable cause or reasonable   ground,   such   proceeding   is   termed   as malicious proceeding.  Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of   West   Bengal   State   Electricity   Board   V/s   Dilip Kumar Ray, reported in AIR 2007 SC 976 has defined malicious prosecution as under:­

“A judicial proceeding instituted by one person   against   another,   from   wrongful   or improper motive and without probable cause to sustain it.”

19. At this juncture I would like to rely upon a decision of  Hon’ble   Privy   Council   in   the   case   of   Mohamed Amin   V/s   Jogendra   Kumar   Bannerjee   and   others reported in AIR(34) 1947 Privy Council 108, wherein it is held as under:­

“In an action for damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove that, the proceedings   initiated   against   him   were malicious without reasonable probable cause, that they terminated in his favour and that he suffered   loss.   It   is   further   held   that   mere presentation of a false complaint which first seeks to set that criminal law motion will not perse   found   in   action   for   damages   for malicious   prosecution.   If   the   magistrate dismisses   the   complaint   as   disclosing   no offence with which he can deal, it may well be that   there   has   been   nothing   but   an unsuccessful attempt to set the criminal law in motion and no damages would be awarded to the plaintiff.”

22. Added to the above, it is also necessary to note that only because the accused persons were acquitted, that itself is not a ground to hold that the said prosecution was   malicious   in   nature.     Before   parting   with   the discussion, I would like to note that the decision of the Hon’ble   Privy   Council   discussed   supra   would   clearly attract to the facts on hand. Though cognizance was taken   and   process   was   issued,   that   itself   cannot   be termed as malicious prosecution. Thus in view of my above discussion, this court is of well founded view that the   plaintiff   has   utterly   failed   in   proving   that   the defendant has maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff in CC No. 1539/2002.

Suit   of   the   plaintiff   being devoid  of  merit,  fails  and  the same is hereby DISMISSED with cost.