2017 (5) TMI 1056 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for recovery of damages and compensation for malicious prosecution from the defendant - Held that - This suit for compensation for malicious prosecution filed during the pendency of the appeal against the order of acquittal is held to be premature and the plaint liable to be rejected. All prosecutions ending in an acquittal cannot be said to be malicious. There is no presumption in law of a prosecution ending in an acquittal being malicious. Thus a plaint in a suit for compensation for malicious prosecution merely stating that the plaintiff was prosecuted by or at the instance of the defendant and was acquitted would not disclose a cause of action. There can be manifold reasons for acquittal. Every acquittal is not a consequence of the prosecution being malicious. It cannot be lost sight of that the remedy of compensation has been provided for malicious prosecution and not for wrongful or uncalled for or failed prosecution . The tort of malicious prosecution requires proof of (a) initiation or continuation of a lawsuit; (b) lack of probable cause; (c) malice; and (d) and favorable termination of lawsuit. The plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution has to necessarily disclose in the plaint the ulterior reason or purpose for which the defendant prosecuted him. The plaintiff in the present case has not disclosed any such particulars whatsoever. Though it is pleaded that the defendant is the son of the younger brother of the plaintiff but there is no averment as to the purpose sought to be achieved by the defendant by so prosecuting the plaintiff. As in this context enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff whether not the dishonoured cheques were drawn on the bank account of the plaintiff.The counsel for the plaintiff replied in the affirmative.There is absolutely no averment in the plaint as to how the said cheques landed in the hands of the defendant and as to what motive the defendant was seeking to attain by prosecuting the plaintiff. Thus hold the plaint to be not disclosing a cause of action for the relief claimed of compensation for malicious prosecution. Thus the suit is misconceived and is dismissed with costs of 20, 000/- to the defendant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Prematurity of the suit for compensation for malicious prosecution.
2. Requirement of specific pleadings regarding malice in a suit for malicious prosecution.
3. Disclosure of a cause of action in the plaint for malicious prosecution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Prematurity of the Suit for Compensation for Malicious Prosecution:
The primary issue addressed was whether the suit for compensation for malicious prosecution is premature due to the pendency of an appeal against the order of acquittal. The court examined Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a limitation of one year for such suits, commencing from the date of acquittal or termination of prosecution. The plaintiff argued, citing precedents from the High Courts of Allahabad and Bombay, that the limitation period begins from the date of acquittal, irrespective of any pending appeal. However, the court found the reasoning of other High Courts, including Allahabad, Madras, Oudh, Nagpur, Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Delhi, more persuasive. These courts held that the period of limitation should commence only after the appeal or revision against the acquittal is resolved, emphasizing that the prosecution cannot be considered terminated while an appeal is pending. Consequently, the court held the suit to be premature and liable for rejection on this ground alone.

2. Requirement of Specific Pleadings Regarding Malice in a Suit for Malicious Prosecution:
The court further scrutinized whether the plaint disclosed specific pleadings of malice, which is a crucial element in a suit for malicious prosecution. It was noted that mere acquittal does not automatically imply malice. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the prosecution was initiated with an improper motive or without probable cause. The court found that the plaintiff's general allegations of harassment and humiliation by the defendant did not suffice to establish malice. The plaintiff failed to provide any specific particulars or ulterior motives for the defendant's actions. The court cited several precedents, including Gangadhar Padhy Vs. Prem Singh and Thangavel Udayar Vs. R.K. Raju Mudaliar, which underscored the necessity of specific pleadings regarding malice in such suits. Thus, the plaint was held to be deficient in disclosing a cause of action for malicious prosecution.

3. Disclosure of a Cause of Action in the Plaint for Malicious Prosecution:
In addressing whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, the court reiterated that the tort of malicious prosecution requires proof of several elements: initiation or continuation of a lawsuit, lack of probable cause, malice, and favorable termination of the lawsuit. The plaintiff's failure to plead specific details regarding the alleged malice rendered the plaint insufficient. The court emphasized that not all prosecutions ending in acquittal are malicious and that the plaintiff must show the defendant's improper motive. The court referenced Black’s Law Dictionary and prior judgments to clarify the definitions and requirements for establishing malicious prosecution. Consequently, the court concluded that the plaint did not disclose a valid cause of action for the relief claimed.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the suit as premature due to the pending appeal against the acquittal and found the plaint insufficient in pleading specific malice, thus failing to disclose a cause of action for malicious prosecution. The suit was dismissed with costs of ?20,000/- to the defendant.