Decided on September 01,2020



D.DASH,J. - (1.) This appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) has been filed by the present appellant in questioning the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1997 and 01.09.1997 respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khurda in Money Appeal No.1 of 1997. That appeal filed by the present respondent challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.01.1997 and 06.02.1997 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda in M.S. No.103 of 1995 has been allowed and accordingly, the suit filed by the present appellant, as the plaintiff, which had been decreed by the trial court has been dismissed.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the trial court.
(3.) The plaintiff has filed the suit claiming damage of Rs.15,000/- from the defendant for the false prosecution against him alleging that he with others entered into the house of the plaintiff, dragged her husband, outraged her modesty and forcibly took away her husband in a jeep. Making such allegations, he lodged a complaint in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Khurda vide 1CC No.22 of 1994. Learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, holding an enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), took cognizance of the offences under section 365/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and issued process against the plaintiff and others, placed as the accused persons therein. The plaintiff then appeared in the said proceeding before the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda on 04.03.1994 through his counsel and filed an application under section 205 Cr.P.C. seeking his representation all throughout in the case, by his lawyer. Another application was also filed for reconsideration of the order of taking cognizance. It is said that those applications having been dismissed, non-bailable warrant of arrest had been issued against the plaintiff and in order to avoid arrest and harassment, he underwent serious mental depression and agony being further not able to perform his normal duties during the said period. The order of the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process to the plaintiff and others were challenged before this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No.616 of 1994 through an application invoking the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court, by order dated 08.07.1994, allowed the said prayer of the plaintiff and another accused, namely, Ramakanta in holding that the continuance of the proceeding against them would be abuse of process. Accordingly, 1CC No.22 of 1994 stood finally concluded in so far as the present plaintiff and another are concerned. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he was then the Sarpanch of Baghamari Grama Panchayat and elected President of Baghamari Service Cooperative Societies as also the Director of Khurda Sub-Divisional House Building Society, Chairman of Baghamari UP School Committee and Member of the Managing Committee of Baghamari High School. Thus, the plaintiff stated that he was carrying/enjoying high reputation and prestige in the society and this malicious and false prosecution launched against him put him to humiliation and harassment when there was absolutely no reasonable and probable cause to institute such a complaint against him in the court of law in making the allegations. He, therefore, he claimed damage of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses from the defendant. It is also stated that the allegations leveled in the complaint against the plaintiff were all with malicious intention and deliberately made to humiliate him in public eye and harass him unnecessary harassment.;

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