SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. RAVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's revision arising out of suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000.00 as damages on account of malicious prosecution alleging therein that he was elected Sarpanch of Village Mansa Khurd and was vested with the control and supervision over Panchayat property, funds, income and expenditure and that he is owner of 32 acres of urban area. Further, the case of the plaintiff is that he is a transporter and runs the buses in the capacity of Managing Director of Shergill Bus Service, Mansa. It is alleged that the defendants are closely related to one Bakhtaur Singh who was defeated by the plaintiff in the election of Sarpanch and the defendants have made a party with said Bakhtaur Singh to defame him. The defendants filed an application before the Director, Panchayat Development, Chandigarh or 27-8-1993 on false allegations and further followed said application by reminder dated 26-5-1994 alleging that the plaintiff had misappropriated the Panchayat land by getting the same allotted to his father and near relatives and had also encroached upon the drains besides cutting and selling the Panchayat trees. Such allegations were supported by affidavit as well. The Secretary, District Board, Sangrur made preliminary enquiry and found the plaintiff to be guilty of the allegations. Consequently, the plaintiff was suspended but as a result of regular enquiry which was afterwards conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, the plaintiff was exonerated and reinstated. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery claiming damages on account of malicious prosecution, as aforesaid.

(3.) Learned trial Court relied upon the judgment in Kapoor Chand Rikhi Ram Mahajan v. Hakim Jagdish Chand Siripat Rai, AIR 1974 Punj and Har 215, and returned a finding that the malicious prosecution does not mean prosecution in criminal Court alone but even if a person does an act which casts a slur on the plaintiff, he is entitled to damages. The trial Court found that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the allegations made by the defendants against him were of criminal nature and he was exonerated of the allegations vide report of the Deputy Commissioner (Exhibit P-6). The proceedings were terminated in favour of the plaintiff. It has been found that the complaint was made on account of party faction in the village since the plaintiff had defeated Bakhtaur Singh in the election of Sarpanch. It was also found that the defendants knew the allegations made by them were not based upon facts as they are residents of the same village. The allegations were levelled in absence of any reasonable or probable cause. Consequently, in view of the circumstances of the case and the status of the plaintiff, the trial Court held him to be entitled to Rs. 10,000.00 as damages for mental stress suffered by him.