2017 (2) TMI 1451 - HC - Indian Laws

Recovery towards liquidated damages together with interest - whether the complaint lodged by the defendant was without any probable and reasonable cause to maintain a suit for malicious prosecution? - HELD THAT - It is well settled that in a suit for malicious prosecution, the entire burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the case. Similarly, it is also well settled that a Civil Court has to conduct independent enquiry before satisfying itself with regard to the absence of reasonable and probable cause for lodging the First Information Report. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to assess materials independently to satisfy itself as to the absence of probable and reasonable cause. If the Expert was examined before the Court and established that only the defendant has signed the pay slip and signature found in the pay slip is that of the defendant, then it can be easily concluded that the defendant having signed the pay slip, fraudulently implicated the plaintiff in a false case. It is not the case of the plaintiff that defendant having signed the pay slip, has filed a false complaint. Whereas, it is the contention of the defendant that on verification of the accounts and seeing debit entry in her account, she found that a sum of ₹ 2,25,000/- was withdrawn and her signature has been forged. She has given a complaint on genuine apprehension. That being the case, it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish that the pay slip infact was signed by the defendant and thereafter, the defendant has falsely given a complaint. Without establishing the same, it cannot be contended by the plaintiff that there is no probable and reasonable cause for lodging a complaint. When some amounts have been debited from one account, it is normal conduct of any human being to lodge a complaint to the lawful authorities to investigate the matter. The above complaint cannot be construed as a false complaint without any probable and reasonable cause and the same has been made with malicious intention. Merely because, the defendant has not got into the box, the same is not a ground to hold that the plaintiff case is true. Even drawing adverse inference against the defendant at the most this Court can hold that defence of the defendant is not true. Still the plaintiff is not relieved from the initial burden of establishing her case of malicious prosecution. It is for the plaintiff to establish that the complaint lodged against her was without probable and reasonable cause. Admittedly, except the police report and the closure report by the Magistrate, as discussed above, no other evidence is available. Further, it is not established by the plaintiff that the defendant has in fact signed the pay slip by examining the expert or the Investigating Officer. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely because the defendant has not been examined, the plaintiff cannot succeed automatically. The issues are answered against the plaintiff - suit dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the defendant lodged a false complaint against the plaintiff alleging forgery.
2. Whether the second signature on the pay slip leading to the debit entry was forged.
3. Whether the defendant committed the torts of malicious prosecution and defamation.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of ?50,00,000/-.
5. Other reliefs entitled to the parties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. False Complaint Allegation:
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant lodged a false complaint alleging that the plaintiff forged the defendant's signature on a pay slip to transfer ?2,25,000/- to the plaintiff's company. The defendant contended that upon scrutinizing the accounts, she discovered the unauthorized withdrawal and lodged a complaint with the police based on a genuine apprehension of forgery. The court noted that the complaint was filed based on the defendant's belief that her signature was forged, and the police investigation, which included a forensic analysis, concluded that the signatures were by the same person. However, the court observed that the final report did not detail the collection of specimen signatures or the forensic expert's testimony. Thus, the court could not conclusively determine the falsity of the complaint based solely on the police report.

2. Forged Signature:
The defendant alleged that the plaintiff forged her signature on the pay slip. The forensic report indicated that the signatures matched, but the expert was not examined in court. The court emphasized that without the expert's testimony and a detailed account of how the specimen signatures were collected, the forensic report alone could not be deemed conclusive evidence. The burden of proving the forgery lay on the plaintiff, which was not sufficiently established.

3. Malicious Prosecution and Defamation:
The court examined whether the defendant's actions constituted malicious prosecution and defamation. The plaintiff needed to prove that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause and with malice. The court cited precedents establishing that malice involves an improper motive beyond merely initiating legal proceedings. The court found that the defendant's complaint was based on a genuine apprehension of forgery, given the unexplained debit entry. The court concluded that the defendant had a reasonable and probable cause to lodge the complaint, and there was no evidence of malice or improper motive.

4. Entitlement to Damages:
The plaintiff sought ?50,00,000/- in damages for the alleged malicious prosecution and defamation. The court reiterated that the plaintiff failed to prove the essential elements of malicious prosecution, including the absence of reasonable cause and the presence of malice. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the damage to her reputation or the alleged obstruction by immigration authorities. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the claimed damages.

5. Other Reliefs:
The court did not find any grounds to grant additional reliefs to the parties. The plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the suit, concluding that the defendant's complaint was based on a genuine apprehension of forgery and not malicious intent. The plaintiff failed to establish the absence of reasonable cause or the presence of malice, and thus, was not entitled to the claimed damages. The court emphasized the importance of examining forensic experts and detailed evidence collection in such cases to substantiate claims of forgery and malicious prosecution.