[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Abhay Narayan Pandey vs Ajmer Singh on 16 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:12393
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 459 of 2016
Abhay Narayan Pandey S/o Late Aditya Narayan Pandey, Aged
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
About 52 Years R/o- Village- Dipadihkala, Police Station And Tahsil-
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
Shankargarh, District- Surguja, Chhattigarh, At Present R/o-
2026.03.17
10:21:15
+0530
Namnakala Ward No. 11, Ambikapur, District- Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.......Plaintiff., Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - Ajmer Singh S/o Kewali Singh, Aged About 43 Years Veterinary
Doctor Posted At Veterinary Hospital, Village- Pasta, Police Station-
Balrampur, District- Balrampur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
2 - Sapan Choudhari, S/o S. Choudhari, Aged About 40 Years At
Present Posted As Station House Officer, Kotwali Ambikapur,
District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o- Station House
Officer- Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District :
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
3 - Hemant Kharre, Aged About 62 Years Station House Officer,
2
Police Station Koni, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, R/o- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Shivram Prasad Kalluri, S/o Shri Ganga Raju, Aged About 50
Years Superintendent Of Police District- Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, At
Present R/o Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Arms Force
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Brijesh Tiwari, S/o Devdutt Tiwari, Aged About 40 Years F.F.
Platoon Commander, District- Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, At Present
Posted As Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh,......Defendants.,
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellant : Mr. Mo. Naqeeb, Advocate appears on
behalf of Shri Kuldeep Singh, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
16.03.2026
1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the
appellant/plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and
decree dated 30.07.2016 passed by the Learned 5 th Additional
District Judge, Ambikapur Distt- Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Appeal
No. 1B/2012 (Abhay Narayan Pandey vs. Ajmer Singh &
Others) arising out of the judgment and decree dated
29.09.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class- I,
Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 1B/2012
(Abhay Narayan Pandey vs. Ajmer Singh & Others). For the
sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per
their status before the learned trial Court.
2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking
compensation for the damages suffered by him due to a
malicious prosecution instituted against him by the
defendants.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the President of Swaraj
Mazdoor Union, Boxite Mine, Surguja and is also a social
worker. In the course of his social activities, he had been
raising public issues and organizing lawful protests to draw
the attention of the authorities. The plaintiff had made several
complaints and agitations against Defendant No.1 to 5
alleging misuse of official position and misappropriation of
public funds meant for welfare works, as well as acts of
harassment and exploitation of common citizens. Due to this,
the defendants developed personal enmity against the
plaintiff. In furtherance of this enmity and under a criminal
conspiracy, Defendant No.1 was allegedly used as a tool to
lodge a false and fabricated complaint dated 28.03.2005,
which was submitted at Police Station Shankargarh on
31.03.2005. Without proper investigation, the plaintiff was
falsely prosecuted and arrested by Defendant No.2. It is
further alleged that the police officials behaved brutally with
the plaintiff, causing humiliation and his reputation was
ruined in society. During trial, the prosecution failed to prove
the allegations and the court ultimately acquitted the plaintiff.
Defendant No.1 also filed an affidavit before the court stating
that the complaint was lodged under pressure from certain
influential persons and was not based on a real incident. Due
to such malicious prosecution, the plaintiff suffered serious
loss of reputation, livelihood, and social standing, and
therefore seeks compensation from the defendants.
4. The defendants No. 2 to 5 filed their written statement and
denied the averments. They contend that Defendant No.1 had
lodged a written complaint on 31.03.2005 at Police Station
Shankargarh. At the relevant time, Defendant No.2 was the
Station House Officer and, in discharge of his official duties,
registered an offence against the plaintiff under Sections 186,
294, 386, 212, and 507 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis
of the said complaint. During investigation, prima facie
evidence was found and accordingly a charge-sheet was filed
before the competent court. They assert that the actions were
taken strictly in accordance with law and in discharge of
official duties, without any pressure or influence from
Defendants No.3 to 5. The acquittal of the plaintiff resulted
from the evidence led before the court, and the reasons why
prosecution witnesses did not support the case is a matter of
inquiry. It is further contended that Defendants No.2 to 5 are
honest police officers who acted only in the discharge of their
official duties and that the proceedings were not initiated by
them independently. Hence, they are not necessary parties to
the present suit and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any
damages from them.
5. The Defendant No.1 has been proceeded ex parte and has not
filed any written statement.
6. After appreciating the evidence available on record and after
framing the issues, the learned trial Court by the judgment
and decree dated 29.09.2012 dismissed the suit of the
plaintiff. Thereagainst, the Civil Appeal preferred by the
plaintiff has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and
decree by the learned First Appellate Court. Thus, this appeal.
7. While dismissing the suit by the learned trial Court as well as
the First Appeal by the learned First Appellate Court, it has
categorically been observed that the plaintiff failed to prove
malice or absence of reasonable and probable cause in the
prosecution against him. The trial Court observed that mere
acquittal in the criminal case does not establish malicious
prosecution and that the defendants had acted on a
complaint and in discharge of official duties. As the plaintiff
produced no sufficient evidence to prove enmity or wrongful
prosecution, the Court held that he was not entitled to any
compensation.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgments
and decrees passed by both the Courts are perverse and
contrary to the evidence available on record. It is contended
that both the Courts failed to properly appreciate the material
facts and circumstances of the case and ignored the conduct
of the respondent officers who had allegedly falsely
implicated the appellant in a criminal case. It is further
submitted that the appellant was acquitted in Criminal Case
No. 847/2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ambikapur, which establishes that the criminal proceedings
were initiated without lawful basis. Despite the same, both the
Courts failed to consider the appellant's entitlement to
damages and compensation and also failed to examine the
alleged illegality committed by the respondent officers in their
personal capacity. Hence, according to the learned counsel,
the impugned judgments give rise to substantial questions of
law which require consideration in the present second appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the
material available on record.
10. Upon consideration of the record and the submissions
advanced, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court
has rightly held that the plaintiff failed to establish the
essential ingredients required to prove a claim for malicious
prosecution, namely the existence of malice and the absence
of reasonable and probable cause. The principal contention of
the plaintiff was based on the affidavit allegedly filed by
Defendant No.1 (Ajmer Singh) during the criminal
proceedings stating that the complaint had been lodged
under pressure. However, it is evident from the record that
prior to filing the said affidavit, Defendant No.1 had already
appeared before the criminal court and duly proved the
written complaint in his deposition. The subsequent affidavit
was not subjected to cross-examination and therefore could
not be treated as substantive evidence. As rightly observed by
the Trial Court, an affidavit filed after completion of
examination and cross-examination of a witness cannot
override or invalidate the testimony already recorded in
accordance with law. Moreover, the judgment of acquittal in
the criminal case only indicates that the prosecution failed to
prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and does not
establish that the prosecution was false or malicious. The
materials on record show that the complaint was lodged by
Defendant No.1 and the police authorities acted upon it in the
discharge of their official duties after conducting
investigation. In such circumstances, the plaintiff failed to
prove that the prosecution was initiated without reasonable
and probable cause or with any malice.
7. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in a Second Appeal
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extremely
limited. Interference is permissible only when the appeal
involves a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of
fact recorded by both the Courts cannot be interfered with
unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no
evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law.
8. In the present case, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court have concurrently recorded findings, on the basis of
evidence available on record, that the appellant/plaintiff failed
to establish their case by placing cogent and sufficient
material. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any
perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so
recorded.
9. The questions sought to be raised in the present Second
Appeal essentially relate to re-appreciation of evidence and
challenge to concurrent findings of fact. Such questions do
not give rise to any substantial question of law within the
meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
10. It is well established that when there is a concurrent finding
of fact, unless it is found to be perverse, the Court should not
ordinarily interfere with the said finding.
11. In the matter of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Shiv Dayal
and another, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637, reiterating the
settled proposition, it has been held that when any concurrent
finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is
entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was
recorded de hors the pleadings or based on misreading of
material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any
provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge
acting judicially could reasonably have reached.
12. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel
for the appellant and the proposed question of law cannot be
regarded as satisfying the test of being 'substantial question
of law' within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. These
questions, in my view, are essentially question of facts. The
appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law
which is required under Section 100 of the CPC in. In any
event, the Second Appeal did not involve any substantial
question of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the
CPC, no case is made out by the appellants herein. The
judgments impugned passed by the learned trial Court as well
as First Appellate Court are just and proper and there is no
illegality and infirmity at all.
13. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Shoaib/Gowri
