Tort — Malicious prosecution — Ingredients — Proof — Police complaints and court proceedings
Repeated complaints lodged by defendant against plaintiff before police authorities and Magistrate — Complaints found false, malicious and without reasonable and probable cause — Proceedings terminated in favour of plaintiff — Ingredients of malicious prosecution fully satisfied — Decree for damages upheld.
[Paras 13–18]
Malicious prosecution — What constitutes “prosecution”
Mere single complaint to police may not amount to prosecution — However, where multiple complaints are lodged, enquiries are conducted, plaintiff is summoned, interrogated, produced before police and Magistrate, and criminal complaints are pursued — Prosecution established — Argument that no FIR was registered rejected.
[Paras 13–17]
Defamation — False criminal complaints — Injury to reputation
False allegations of cheating and fraud made repeatedly before police, Magistrate and in public view — Plaintiff subjected to humiliation, loss of reputation and social standing — Oral evidence of independent witness sufficient to establish defamation — Award of damages justified.
[Paras 17–18]
Damages — Malicious prosecution and defamation — Quantum
Plaintiff claimed damages for defamation, mental and physical agony, and loss of earning — Courts below rightly disallowed claim for loss of earning and medical expenses in absence of documentary proof — Damages of ₹50,000 for defamation and ₹50,000 for mental and physical agony reasonable and proportionate.
[Para 18]
Second appeal — Section 100 CPC — Concurrent findings of fact
Concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate court based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence — No perversity or substantial question of law made out — Interference in second appeal declined.
[Paras 12, 19–20]
False complaints — Abuse of criminal process
Use of criminal complaints as pressure tactic in civil money dispute — Conduct amounts to abuse of criminal process — Civil liability for damages attracted.
[Paras 16–18]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Proceedings
The defendants preferred a second appeal under Section 100 CPC challenging concurrent judgments whereby the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of ₹4 lakhs as damages on account of malicious prosecution and defamation was decreed partly.
[Paras 1–2, 12]
2. Factual Background
The plaintiff alleged that defendant No.1, with the support of others, lodged multiple false complaints against him alleging cheating and misappropriation of money. As a result:
police enquiries were conducted repeatedly,
the plaintiff was taken to police offices under escort,
he was interrogated in public view,
criminal complaints were filed before the Magistrate and later dismissed.
[Paras 3–4, 13–16]
3. Defence of the Defendants
The defendants contended that:
only one complaint was filed,
no FIR was registered,
therefore no “prosecution” in law took place,
there was reasonable and probable cause due to money dispute.
[Paras 8–9]
4. Findings on Number and Nature of Complaints
The High Court noted that:
defendants themselves produced Ex.D1 to Ex.D5, showing several complaints,
evidence of police official proved repeated enquiries,
a criminal complaint was also filed before the Magistrate and dismissed under Section 203 CrPC.
Hence, contention of “single complaint” was factually incorrect.
[Paras 13–16]
5. Ingredients of Malicious Prosecution
Applying settled law, the Court held that:
Proceedings were instituted by defendant No.1;
Proceedings lacked reasonable and probable cause;
Proceedings were actuated by malice;
Proceedings terminated in favour of the plaintiff.
All essential ingredients stood proved.
[Paras 16–18]
6. Defamation and Injury to Reputation
The plaintiff examined an independent witness who deposed that:
defendants publicly accused plaintiff of cheating and fraud,
plaintiff lost respect in society.
The Court held that repeated false criminal accusations amounted to actionable defamation.
[Paras 17–18]
7. Assessment of Damages
While the plaintiff claimed ₹4 lakhs, the courts below:
disallowed damages for loss of earning and medical expenses due to lack of proof,
awarded ₹50,000 for defamation and ₹50,000 for mental and physical agony.
The High Court found the quantum balanced and justified.
[Para 18]
8. Scope of Second Appeal
The High Court reiterated that:
it cannot re-appreciate evidence in second appeal,
concurrent findings were neither perverse nor illegal,
no substantial question of law arose.
[Paras 12, 19–20]
9. Final Holding
The second appeal was dismissed.
Concurrent decrees awarding damages for malicious prosecution and defamation were affirmed.
[Paras 19–20]
Ratio Decidendi
Where a defendant repeatedly lodges false complaints before police and Magistrate, resulting in enquiries, public humiliation and termination of proceedings in favour of the plaintiff, the torts of malicious prosecution and defamation stand established. Concurrent findings awarding reasonable damages do not warrant interference in second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
No comments:
Post a Comment