1972 (5) TMI 74 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is within time.
2. Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action.
3. Whether the plaintiff was prosecuted maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause.
4. If issue No. (3) is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as per details given in the plaint.
5. Whether the defendant is not liable to pay any damage even if the prosecution was made maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause because of the fact that the prosecution was in fact launched by the State.
6. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35A Civil Procedure Code.
7. Relief.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the suit is within time:
The Trial Court held the suit to be within time. This decision was not contested in the appeal.

2. Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action:
The Trial Court decided this issue against the respondent, affirming that the plaint did disclose a cause of action.

3. Whether the plaintiff was prosecuted maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause:
The Trial Court found that the respondent, while making false allegations in the complaint, relegated himself to the position of a prosecutor. However, the affidavit filed by the respondent was interpreted as a mere intention to transfer the plot, not an actual transfer. The application for the actual transfer was not signed by the respondent, allowing him to reasonably believe that the appellant was part of a fraudulent scheme. Thus, this issue was decided against the appellant and in favor of the respondent.

4. If issue No. (3) is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as per details given in the plaint:
The Trial Court calculated damages at Rs. 6,150/- for mental worries and expenses incurred by the appellant on his defense. No damages for loss of re-employment were awarded due to its uncertain nature. Since issue No. (3) was not proved in favor of the appellant, he was not entitled to the claimed damages.

5. Whether the defendant is not liable to pay any damage even if the prosecution was made maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause because of the fact that the prosecution was in fact launched by the State:
This issue was covered by Issue No. (4) and no separate finding was given.

6. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35A Civil Procedure Code:
The Trial Court decided this issue against the respondent.

7. Relief:
The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant.

Appeal Analysis:

Malicious Prosecution:
The appellant argued that he was prosecuted based on false allegations and was discharged due to the absence of prima facie proof, entitling him to damages of Rs. 6,150/-. The legal conditions for malicious prosecution were discussed, including the need for the proceedings to be instituted by the defendant, lack of reasonable cause, malice, and unsuccessful termination in favor of the plaintiff.

Reasonable and Probable Cause:
The Court found that the respondent had reasonable and probable cause for initiating the complaint. The respondent's belief that he had been cheated was supported by the circumstances, including the unauthorized application for the plot transfer and the appellant's misrepresentation of payment to the Estate Officer.

Malice:
The Court concluded that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent bore any ill-will or enmity against him. The respondent's actions were based on a reasonable belief of being defrauded, and no improper or indirect motive was established.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's decision that the respondent had reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution and was not actuated by malice. The appellant's claim for damages was denied, and no costs were awarded.