Radhey Mohan Singh vs Kaushalya Devi And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 598 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No. 553/2001. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:-

2. The appellant was an employee of respondent No. 1 proprietorship firm in the name and style of M/s. Bajaj Plastic. The firm was later converted into M/s. Sunny Plastic. According to the appellant, though he was working efficiently he was not paid legitimate and lawful remuneration. The appellant gave notice to the respondent on 4.12.1989. by which the respondent became furious and abusive towards the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent filed a complaint against the appellant even incorporating allegations of misappropriation of Rs. 50,000/-. The police took immediate action on the said complaint and in connivance with the respondent filed a challan against the appellant. The appellant was kept in illegal custody for a period of four days i.e. 8.1.1990 to 11.1.1990. He was taken to his village and was paraded there on foot in public and was branded as a thief. The appellant submitted that a false case was instituted against him. In this case he was given benefit of doubt and was consequently acquitted. The appellant submitted that because of the malicious prosecution by the respondents he is entitled to damages. In the written statement, the respondents denied the allegation levelled against them. In the written statement it is incorporated that filing of a suit was a total abuse of the process and the suit deserved to be dismissed with heavy costs.

3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issued were framed:-

Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPD.

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

Whether there is no cause of action in filing the present suit?

Whether plaintiff is entitled to amount claimed?

Relief.

4. According to the respondent/defendant the suit of the appellant/plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. This issue was decided in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff. According to the trial court, the investigating officer or any other police official ought to have been imp leaded as a defendant in the suit particularly when there is a clear allegation of active connivance of the police officials with the defendant.

5. Issue No. 3 relates to the cause of action. The trial court on the basis of pleadings held that the appellant had a cause of action and decided the issue in favor of the plaintiff (appellant).

6. Issue No. 2 relates to maintainability of the suit and issue No. 4 is regarding entitlement of the plaintiff to the amount claimed. The contention of the appellant that he was prosecuted by respondent maliciously without any reasonable and probable cause. After carefully examining the pleadings and the relevant case laws on the points, the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant(plaintiff) was required to prove that the FIR filed by respondent (defendant No1) was false and malicious. The trial court observed that the appellant(plaintiff) himself admitted commission of the offence giving the respondent reasonable and probable cause of filing the complaint which on investigation was found to be correct. The trial court mentioned that for lapses of prosecution and non-corroboration of the prosecution version before the Court, the appellant was acquitted, but that cannot lead to the conclusion that there was no reasonable or probable cause for filing the complaint. The trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to damages. The suit of the appellant is based primarily on the ground that because he was given benefit of doubt, the entire complaint filed by the respondent is malicious. In all cases where benefit of doubt is given by the court it is difficult to hold that the complaint which is the basis of the prosecution is false and untenable. There are variety of reasons for which the accused is given benefit of doubt. This by itself cannot lead to a conclusion that the complaint was based on extraneous consideration leading to the entitlement of damages.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Ucho Singh Vs. Nageshar Prasad, AIR 1956 Patna 285. In this case, the court observed where the finding of the Courts of fact is that the accusation against the plaintiffs made by the defendant was false to his knowledge and that there was enmity between the parties and their supporters, the conclusion would follow that the prosecution of the plaintiffs was malicious as well as without any reasonable and probable cause. There is no quarrel with the proposition as enunciated in this case but when the principle of this case is made applicable to the facts of this case, the conclusion is irresistible. In the instant case, the appellant himself had committed the offence, giving the respondent reasonable and probable cause for filing of complaint which on investigation was found to be correct. It is true that because of the lapses of the prosecution and non-corroboration of the story by the prosecution, the accused was given benefit of doubt but in the facts of this case, on the finding arrived at by the learned trial court, it cannot be construed that there was no reasonable or probable cause of filing the complaint. The trial court came to a definite finding that prosecution of the appellant by the respondent was not a malicious prosecution and consequently the appellant is not entitled to damages.

8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, no infirmity can be found with the findings arrived at by the trial court.

9. This appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.