PADMANABHAN GANGADHARAN Vs. MATHEVAN GANGADHARAN
LAWS(KER)-1974-7-30
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on July 31,1974

PADMANABHAN GANGADHARAN Appellant
VERSUS
MATHEVAN GANGADHARAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Appellant was the defendant in a suit for malicious prosecution.
(2.) Plaintiff and defendant are doing business in adjacent rooms at Kilimanoor Junction. On 14-6-1963 the defendant preferred a complaint C. C. 125 of 1963 (Ext. P1) in the S. D. M. Court, Attingal against the plaintiff for the offences under S.114, 506(ii), 427 and 379, I. P. C. The substance of the complaint was that the previous night (13-6-1963) at about 9 o'clock, the plaintiff and others formed into an unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons like choppars, sticks, daggers etc. trespassed on his property, destroyed the southern wall of his shop which touched the plaintiff's shop, in order to put a door, and cut off the rafters and at the approach of the defendant the plaintiff rushed at him with a dagger, that the defendant ran off and escaped and that he also intimidated him shouting abuses and threatening to lull him. The motive alleged was that the plaintiff was disappointed at the defendant's conduct in purchasing the property at a price higher than he was prepared to offer. The Magistrate took the complaint on file for offences under S.379, 427 and 306(ii) and issued a bailable warrant for the plaintiff --there was a prayer for warrant in the complaint. The plaintiff was granted bail by the police and later he appeared in court on 28-6-1963 and took bail. After four hearings, on 19-8-1963 the defendant filed an application Ext. D4 that as he had filed a Civil suit for damages and other reliefs in respect of the property and as his witnesses to the occurrence had turned hostile and he has no other witness the case might be closed at that stage. He also gave a deposition (Ext. D5) to that effect. The same day the Magistrate passed the order Ext, P2, discharged the plaintiff under S.253(2), Criminal Procedure Code, finding that the complaint was groundless. Thereafter the plaintiff brought this suit for damages for malicious prosecution claiming Rs. 3,300/- made up of Rs. 300/- for obtaining bail and for defending the complaint, Rs. 1,000/- for mental and bodily suffering, Rs. 300/- for loss of business and Rs. 1,500/- for loss of reputation,
(3.) The defendant resisted the suit contending that there was reasonable and probable cause for the complaint, that he acted in good faith and was not actuated by malice or ill will and that the plaintiff has suffered no damages.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.