- (1.) THIS is a second ap peal filed by defendant Vijay Nath against the judgment and decree dated 6th of July, 1962 passed by the Addition al Civil Judge, Basti decreeing plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 226.25 as dama ges suffered by the plaintiff on account of criminal prosecution initiated by defendant which was false, malicious and had been initiated without, any rea sonable or probable cause.
(2.) IT is said that the defendant Vijay Nath filed a complaint against the plaintiff alleging that on 26th March. 1960 at about 8 a. m. two bullocks be longing to Damodar Das were grazing the sugar-cane crop grown in Vijai Nath's field. When Vijay Nath after apprehen ding these bullocks was taking them to kine- house. Damodar Das stopped Vijay Nath and asked him not to take the bul locks to the kine-house. Vijay Nath did not agree to this. Damodar Das raised an alarm on which certain persons, who along with Damodar Das are plaintiffs in the suit reached there. They snatch ed the bullocks and beat Vijay Nath who received a number of injuries. Vijai Nath however did not go to the police station on account of fear. He filed a complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Dumariaganj. The Judicial Magistrate summoned the plaintiffs and ultimately the complaint filed by Vijay Nath was dismissed for default. According to the plaintiffs this complaint was absolutely false, malicious and without any reason able and probable cause. No incident as alleged by Vijay Nath, ever, took place and he was never beaten. Plaintiffs therefore claimed damages for their pro secution which was malicious and had been initiated without any reasonable and probable cause. The defendant pleaded that the complaint filed by him was true and in- no case it could be described as false or malicious. The plaintiff was there fore not entitled to the relief claimed by him.
(3.) BOTH the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. Trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant did sow sugar-cane crop and the situation of his field was such that cattle belonging to the plaintiff could enter it and graze the sugar-cane crop. It found that the plaintiff's evidence which consisted of the statement made by Domodar Das and his labourer Bans-raj was the evidence given by interested witnesses and as such it could not be relied upon. According to it the evidence produced on behalf of the defendant consisted of his own statement which was fully corroborated by the evidence given by Ram Nath against whom noth ing could be said. It therefore believed the evidence tendered by the defendant and held that allegations made by Vijay Nath in his complaint appeared to be correct. The trial court was not inclin ed to draw any inference against the defendant from the fact that he got his complaint dismissed for default as in its opinion the prosecution of the plaintiff appeared to be based on facts. It could therefore, not be said that the complaint lodged by the defendant was malicious and without any reasonable and proba ble cause.;