Rajender Kumar Jaina vs Rajesh Puri & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5771 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RFA No.708 /2002

%                                              28th November, 2011

RAJENDER KUMAR JAINA                                      ...... Appellant
                 Through:                Mr. S.P.S. Sharma, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

RAJESH PURI & ORS.                                         ...... Respondents

                          Through:       Mr. N.S. Jain, Advocate for the
                                         respondent Nos.1 and 2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA


To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section

96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment dated

18.7.2002 of the trial Court which dismissed the suit filed by the

appellant/plaintiff for damages of ` 5 lacs on the ground that there was no

malicious prosecution of the appellant/plaintiff.

2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that because of the false

complaint, he suffered humiliation, mental agony etc. from 4.8.1997 to 6.8.1997

inasmuch as he was denied bail and was sent to judicial custody.

3. The trial Court has dismissed the suit inasmuch as the

appellant/plaintiff failed to file any proof of his status (which would have been in

the form of income tax return or the ownership of properties) for determining

what could have been the actual damages suffered by the appellant/plaintiff.

The plaintiff also led no evidence of any mental agony or how his reputation was

lowered. The trial Court has also noted that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove

malicious prosecution because he did not file any judgment of the criminal

complaint being false and hence dismissed. The relevant observations of the trial

Court are contained in para 6 of the impugned judgment and which reads as

under:-

"6. Though PW-1 had deposed on all the material facts alleged in the plaint consistently, and in addition to that he had tried to prove the documents Ex.PW-1/ to Ex.PW-1/15 but despite all this he bitterly failed to prove the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff on account of the conduct of the defendant by filing and pursuing criminal complaint in a criminal court of justice. How the plaintiff had suffered a loss of ` 5 lacs had not been substantiated by any evidence or by any report of a doctor or any other person in whose eyes the reputation of the plaintiff had been lowered. What mental agony or harassment has been suffered has not been substantiated by any medical evidence on record and no expenditure in that regard had been pleaded and proved on record. On the other hand, nothing has been pleaded that the complaint filed by the defendants against the plaintiff was held as false and frivolous, and once the plaintiff bitterly failed to plead and prove that the allegations made in the complaint were adjudicated as false by the criminal court who was having jurisdiction to entertain and try the said criminal complaint, I find that the plaintiff bitterly failed to prove his case for any damage

against the defendant. At the same time, in the entire pleadings as well as on evidence nothing has been proved by the plaintiff that the affidavit filed by the defendant in support of the allegations or any statement made by the defendant in the Court of Ld. CMM in support of the complaint was false. Once the defendant had leveled the specific allegation of cheating and the complaint has been duly filed before the competent court of jurisdiction and the same was heard and determined in accordance with the law by the competent court of jurisdiction, any action taken by the criminal court was in accordance with the law and the defendants were entitled to take legal course if any offence was allegedly committed by the plaintiff against them. Had the allegations made in the complaint been false, the Court, who had taken cognizance of the said offences must have expressed its opinion in that regard. Plaintiff bitterly failed to prove any opinion expressed by the CMM to the fact that the complaint filed by the defendant was having false allegations or that the deposition made by the defendant in the court in support of the said complaint was false on any fact and therefore in the absence of proving the falsity of the said allegations with definite opinion of the criminal court in that regard, I find that the plaintiff bitterly to prove his case against the defendants on any ground of damages in that regard. Therefore, I find that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages from the defendants." (underlining added)

4. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment which calls for

any interference by this Court in the appeal once the appellant/plaintiff failed to

prove his status, and which is a sine qua non to quantify damages, and also he

failed to prove that complaint filed against him was dismissed as being false. It

was in fact admitted by the counsel for the appellant that the matter was

compromised between the parties and hence undoubtedly the suit was liable to

be dismissed and which has accordingly been done by the trial Court.

5. In view of the above, I find that there is no merit in the appeal,

which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial

Court record be sent back.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 28, 2011 Ne