K. M. Dayal, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants arising out of a suit for damages for initiating malicious proceedings against the plaintiff. It may be pointed out that the plaint referred to the words 'Abhiyog' and 'Vibhagiya Karwahi' as the basis of the suit. It does not make any mention of either arrest or criminal prosecution. THE Courts below have not been able to distinguish between a malicious prosecution and malicious proceedings though damages may be claimed on the basis of either. THE main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as in the instant case the plaintiff has not been prosecuted in any criminal court nor any such proceedings have been taken against him he was not entitled to maintain the suit for malicious prosecution. It is true that in para 3 of the additional pleas of the written statement it was specifically mentioned that no proceedings before any criminal court were taken nor any criminal law was set into motion the suit was not maintainable. THE trial Court did not frame any issue on the point. THE lower appellate Court also mentioned the point in a half hearted manner and did not decide in accordance-with law. The objection of the learned counsel for the appellant is that claim for damages on the basis of malicious prosecution is available to such plaintiffs against whom proceedings have been taken in criminal courts. However in a case where there is no criminal proceedings but other action which may cause damage to the plaintiff's reputation, mental peace and other things may also be actionable. Such an action based on proceedings other than criminal proceedings would be malicious proceedings and not malicious prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the leading case of Balbhadder Singh v. Badri Sah reported in AIR 1926 Privy Council 46. That was a case of malicious prosecution. On the complaint of the defendants the plaintiff was prosecuted and tried for murder. After his acquittal he filed the suit for damages for malicious prosecution. According to that case four things were required to be proved. The first was setting into motion of the criminal machinery against the plaintiff; secondly termination of the proceedings in favour of the plaintiff ; thirdly prosecution by the defendants without reasonable and probable cause and lastly malicious intents of the defendants. As I have noted above the instant case was not one which for malicious prosecution, but which was for damages on the basis of malicious proceedings initiated by the defendants, that case had no application to the present case. It is true that no proceedings were taken before a criminal court till legal proceedings were taken which tended to diminish the prestige of the plaintiff in public eye and the plaintiff had to spend in defending himself.
(3.) WHAT happened in the instant case was that the plaintiff was the Pradhan of the village. The defendants were the members of the Gaon Sabha or residents of village concerned. They moved several applications before the Sub-Divisional Officer and other authorities complaining irregularities committed by the plaintiff in discharge of his duties as Pradhan. Enquiry was initiated against the plaintiff, Pradhan, under section 95 (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. In those enquiries the Sub-Divisional Officer-found that the complaints were false and malicious. No charge was proved against the plaintiff. It was further found that some of the alleged misconducts were manipulated by the defendant Bhagwan Dutta himself. With these remarks the plaintiff was exonerated from the charges. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that as some of the charges have been found to be substantially correct, but the explanation of the plaintiff about the aforesaid charges having been accepted he was discharged the complaint made by the defendants could not be said to be without any reasonable or probable cause. After looking to the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer I find that the explanation of the plaintiff was accepted only in some of the cases. But in some cases it has been held that Bhagwan Dutta who himself was entrusted with certain work of Gaon Sabha had manipulated and concocted the charges against the Pradhan.;