- (1.)THESE two appeals arise out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution filed by Pannalal, Gopal Singh, Prithwi Singh, Madho Singh and Uddham Singh against Shrikrishna, Buddha-ram and Satyanarain. The plaintiffs alleged that on 14-1-1950 Mangalia, the father of Shrikrishna, Buddharam and Satyanarain made a report to tile police that a dacoity had been committed at his house and that after the report when the investigation was taken up by the police, Shrikrishna, Buddharam and Satyanarain made statements to the police implicating the plaintiffs in the alleged dacoity. The plaintiffs further stated that as a sequel to the report made by Mangalia and the statements to the police by the defendants they were prosecuted for an offence Under Section 395, I. P. C, in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Shivpuri and ultimately acquitted; that no dacoity was even committed at the house of Mangalia and that in giving information to the police that the plaintiffs had committed the dacoity, the defendants acted with our reasonable and probable cause and with a malicious intention. The defendants admitted that Mangalia made a report to the police and that the plaintiffs were acquitted of the offence Under Section 395, I, P. . C. They denied having given any information to the police that the plaintiffs were amongst the dacoits and said that the prosecution was not malicious nor without reasonable and probable cause. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 500/- as damages.
(2.)THE Civil Judge, Second Class of Kolaras who tried the suit held that the defendants instituted a false case against the plaintiffs and that there was no reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution and that the defendants had acted maliciously. He accordingly passed a decree in favour of trie plaintiffs for Rs. 274-2-0 and costs of the suit. The plaintiffs and the defendants, both, then appealed to the Civil Judge First Class, Shivpuri. The defendants' appeal was for the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit and the plaintiffs' appeal was for decreeing their claim to the full amount of Rs. 500/-claimed by them as damages. The learned Civil Judge modified the decree of the trial Court by giving to the plaintiffs Rs. 320/- as damages. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants have now appealed to this Court.
(3.)HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs' suit must be dismissed on the short ground that they have failed to prove that they were prosecuted by the defendants. The learned Civil Judge has held on the authority of 'gaya Prasad v. Bhagat Singh', 30 All 525 (PC) (A), that though Mangalia lodged the report with the police, yet inasmuch as Buddharam admittedly implicated the plaintiffs in the dacoity in his statement to the police, the defendants were the prosecutors. Before me learned Counsel for the plaintiffs also relied upon '30 All 525 (PC) (A)', and on the case of 'bal-bhaddar Singh v. Badri Sah' AIR 1926 PC 46 (B) to support his contention that as the prosecution was on the basis of a statement made by Buddharam to the police implicating the plaintiffs, the defendants could be sued for damages for malicious prosecution,
;