Punjab-Haryana High Court
Meharban Singh @ Meharwan Singh vs Suman Sharma on 24 March, 2025
RSA-4565-2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
111 RSA-4565-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.03.2025
Meharban Singh @ Meharwan Singh ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Suman Sharma ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent
judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit
filed by the plaintiff for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.5 lacs (Rs.2
lacs for loss of reputation; Rs. 2 lacs for mental tension and harassment;
and Rs. 1 lac towards expenses incurred in defending the matter), has
been dismissed by both the Courts below.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff
had purchased a property vide registered Sale Deed dated 10.05.1996. In
2008, the plaintiff went to Canada and even in 2009 he was in Canada. It
was alleged in the plaint, that the defendant had illegally encroached
upon some portion of the property of the plaintiff; and when relatives of
the plaintiff had tried to stop the defendant, the defendant had lodged a
false complaint dated 01.10.2009 against the plaintiff upon which a false
FIR No. 118 dated 09.10.2009 was registered under Sections 448 and 511
IPC at Police Station Rahon despite the fact that the plaintiff was not in
India at the time. It was further averred that the said FIR was circulated in
RSA-4565-2018 (O&M) -2-
the area and also published on the website of the Punjab Police due to
which the plaintiff remained under tremendous mental tension. Due to
the registration of the FIR, the plaintiff had to travel to India after leaving
his job in Canada. Subsequently upon investigation, allegations in the FIR
are found to be false and finally, vide cancellation report No. 644 dated
17.11.2009 (Ex.P4), the said FIR was cancelled. The matter was also
inquired by District Revenue Officer, Nawanshahr who also found act of
defendant to be wrong. It is submitted that accordingly the plaintiff had
filed the present suit for recovery of damages as above.
3. It is contended that the learned Courts below are in error in
non-suiting the plaintiff as they have failed to appreciate the above facts.
It is accordingly prayed that the judgments and decrees of the learned
Courts below be set aside.
4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and
perused the case file in great detail.
6. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the present
appeal pertains to the year 2018 and notice has not yet been issued in the
matter as the same has been adjourned at request of learned counsel for
the appellant on 05.07.2022, 21.07.2023, 17.08.2023, 16.11.2023,
30.01.2024 and 14.10.2024; and due to non-appearance of learned counsel
for the appellant on 09.01.2020, 18.03.2020, 10.07.2023.
RSA-4565-2018 (O&M) -3-
7. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff. Perusal of the record of the case shows that it was the
case of the defendant before the learned Courts below that she had
purchased a plot measuring 2 marlas 5 sarsahis from one Vinod Kumar vide
Sale Deed dated 27.08.2009; who (Vinod Kumar) had purchased the said
plot from one Sohan Lal vide registered Sale Deed dated 09.03.2005. The
municipal record also reflected the name of the said Sohan Lal; and even
the sewage and water connection were obtained by Sohan Lal. On the basis
of evidence brought on record by the parties, it has been found by both the
Courts below that the respective plots of the parties were separate entities
with separate boundaries. Therefore, it was held that the defendant had full
right to protect her possession over the property purchased by her.
8. The learned Courts below further found that in FIR No. 118
dated 09.10.2009 registered under Sections 448 and 511 IPC at Police
Station Rahon (Ex.P3) the defendant had levelled allegations only against
Gurdev Kaur mother-in-law of the plaintiff, as she had tried to interfere in
the construction being raised by the defendant upon her plot. It has not
been denied by the appellant that not a word of allegation was levelled by
the defendant either in the complaint, or even in the FIR against the
plaintiff.
9. In this regard, learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted
that the police would not have arrayed the plaintiff as accused in the FIR
except at the instance of the complainant/defendant. However, the said
argument is unfounded as admittedly, the defendant has not named the
RSA-4565-2018 (O&M) -4-
plaintiff in the complaint filed by her. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff
was not in India when complaint was filed by the defendant. As such, there
was no reason or occasion for the defendant to level any allegation against
the plaintiff. This fact has been admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-
examination as PW1 that the defendant had moved complaint/application
only against Gurdev Kaur. Even in the inquiry report dated 17.11.2009
(Ex.P4) submitted by the Superintendent of Police (City) SBS Nagar it is
recorded that the complaint was made by the defendant only against
Gurdev Kaur. Moreover, the plaintiff had failed to show any harassment or
loss of reputation has been caused to him after registration of the FIR. Even
it was not proved that publication of FIR on the website of the Punjab Police
had caused any loss of reputation to the plaintiff.
10. Moreover, it is established position in law that merely moving a
complaint, or instituting any legal proceedings, or even the acquittal of the
plaintiff in such legal proceedings, would not by itself constitute malicious
prosecution. The basic requirements/ingredients of malicious
prosecution are: i) the proceedings must have been instituted or
continued by the defendant; ii) he must have acted without reasonable and
probable cause; iii) he must have acted maliciously; iv) in certain classes of
cases the proceedings must have been unsuccessful that is to say, must
have terminated in favour of the plaintiff now suing; v) as a result of the
malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has suffered damage; and vi) that
damages might be claimed in such an action under three heads, (1) damage
to the person, (2) damage to property, and (3) damage to reputation. From
RSA-4565-2018 (O&M) -5-
the records the plaintiff has failed to prove the above ingredients, especially
that any damage has been caused to his person, to his property, or even to
his reputation. I am supported in my view, by a judgment of the Mysore
High Court in "Bolandauda Pemmayya & Another Vs. Ayaradara
Kushalappa" Law Finder Doc ID # 325776; of Privy Council (From Calcutta)
in "Mohamed Amin Vs. Jogendra Kumar Bannerjee & Others" Law Finder
Doc ID # 283054; and of Delhi High Court in "K.B. Mathur & Another Vs. Sh.
Sheel Kumar Saxena & Another" Law Finder doc Id # 44511. In the present
case, admittedly, the plaintiff was never prosecuted. There is no evidence
to show that any damage or harassment was caused to the plaintiff. It
must be remembered that the institution of a legal proceeding by the
defendant against the plaintiff maliciously and without reasonable and
probable cause is actionable in tort 'on proof of damage either to his
reputation or to his property'. In the present case, the appellant/plaintiff
has failed to prove any damage either to his reputation or to his property or
to his person.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is unable to dispute
or controvert the above said facts and findings.
12. In view of the discussion above, no ground is made out to
interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts
below. The present regular second appeal is hereby dismissed.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
24.03.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
