MADAN LAL KALRA Vs. ANIL KUMAR TINNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 75 days occurred in re-filing of the appeal is condoned.Main Case Present regular second appeal has been filed by the defendant to the suit. Respondent-plaintiff, Anil Kumar Tinna had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,90,300/- as damages from the appellant-defendant for his malicious prosecution in criminal case arising out of FIR No. 110 dated 11.8.1996 registered at Police Station City Abohar under Section 406, 498-A IPC. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he was a shopkeeper and was doing business of karyana merchant at Abohar and was ex-president of Jeep Union, Abohar and enjoyed a good reputation and esteem amongst his friends, relations and neighbours in and around Abohar City. Plaintiff was friend of Dr. Anil Midha who was married with defendant No. 2 - Mrs. Sanju Kalra. Dr. Amit Midha and his wife Sanju Kalra, due to matrimonial dispute had strained relations, therefore, they parted ways. Sanju Kalra, appellant-defendant No. 2 started living with her parents at her parental house at Abohar. It is stated that Sanju Kalra got registered FIR No. 110 dated 11.8.1996 at P.S. City Abohar under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. It was further pleaded that respondent plaintiff was neither entrusted with any dowry articles nor he had attended the marriage. In the FIR, an allegation was levelled by Sanju Kalra that the respondent-plaintiff was abetting other accused to demand more dowry. On the registration of the FIR, respondent plaintiff who was a friend of Dr. Amit Midha, husband of appellant defendant No. 2, was got arrested on 13.8.1996 at 7 AM. He was handcuffed by the police and paraded through the streets and bazars of Abohar. Thus, he was not only harassed but insulted. Furthermore, for four days, he was harassed and beaten up by the police and was produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 16.8.1996. It was stated that neither any dowry article was entrusted to the respondent-plaintiff, who was a friend of the husband, with whom the appellant-defendant was haying strained relations. Respondent-plaintiff was remanded to police custody upto 17.8.1996. His bail application was dismissed. Thereafter, he was released on 30.8.1996 even though he was granted bail on 28.8.1996. Thus, from 13.8.1996 to 30.8.1996, respondent-plaintiff remained in police and judicial custody. It was further pleaded that defendants started threatening the respondent-plaintiff that he will be implicated falsely in some other case, therefore, he had to file an application for grant of blanket bail in the High Court and had to engage a Counsel. Furthermore, respondent-plaintiff was charged in the above case and he had to engage a Counsel at Abohar. He was found innocent against which a revision was filed in the court of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur who remanded the matter to Ilaqa Magistrate to consider it afresh. Furthermore, thereafter, plaintiff filed a criminal revision in this Court bearing No. 467, of 1998 and in the revision, the High Court had quashed the charge against the plaintiff. Written statement was filed by defendants No. 1 to 6 in which it was stated that no direct loss has been suffered by respondent-plaintiff. The trial court formulated the issues and thereafter parties led their evidence.

(2.) The trial court noticed the fact that a friend being not a relation, cannot be tried for an offence under Section 498-A IPC. The trial court further noticed the observations made by the High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 17797-M of 1996. The trial court further noticed principles of malicious prosecution enunciated in law of torts by Salmond. The court appreciated the testimony of DW4 Sanju Kalra and held that the allegations leveled against respondent-plaintiff were vague and general in nature. Thereafter, the court awarded Rs. 60,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff.

(3.) Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed by defendants No. 1 to 3 to the suit. The lower appellate court upheld the findings given by the trial court.