M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.) THE only question which arises for determination in this appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated 23.2.1980 is as to whether there is proof of malice and also proof of absence of reasonable and probable cause for launching prosecution by the defendant-respondent by filing complaint under Section 325, Indian Penal Code against the plaintiff- appellant so as to award damages for malicious prosecution to the plaintiff. Unless these two requirements of law are satisfied, it is not possible to sustain the claim of the plaintiff-appellant for damages for malicious prosecution.
(2.) THE facts of the case necessary to decide the appeal are that defendant- respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the defendant) initiated criminal prosecution against the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiff) under Section 325 Indian Penal Code by filing a complaint on 29.6.1971 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura. The plaintiff alleged that the complaint was filed by the defendant against him without any reasonable cause and the filing of complaint was actuated by mala fide intention because a civil suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and others regarding the flow of water to his residential house was dismissed. It is averred that in order to take revenge against the plaintiff, the defendant filed a false and frivolous complaint against the plaintiff alongwith one Joginder Singh. The complaint was dismissed on 13.12.1973 and the plaintiff was discharged. It is claimed by the plaintiff that because of the malicious prosecution by the defendant, he had suffered pecuniary damages as well as loss of reputation in the village. It is also claimed that he suffered mental and bodily pain which was a natural consequence of the malicious act of the defendant. An amount of Rs. 500/- has been claimed by way of general damages and also special damages for having defended the complaint filed by the defendant on 24 dates by engaging a counsel. A further claim of Rs. 15/- per day for loss of business suffered has been claimed as the plaintiff is a carpenter. In this manner he has claimed a total amount of Rs. 1,000/- as damages from the defendant. The defendant in his written statement, controverted all the allegations and it was claimed that the complaint was rightly filed. It has been further pleaded by him that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to claim damages as the decision in criminal case would not have any effect on civil litigation.
(3.) THE trial Court after recording the evidence felt persuaded to hold that the defendant had filed a false complaint against the plaintiff and maliciously prosecuted him. Discussion by the trial Court on this issue is available in paragraph 9 which reads as under : "9. The perusal of judgment Ex.P1 further goes to show that in the complaint it was alleged by the defendant that Joginder Singh met him in the way. Then Joginder Singh started abusing the defendant and also weilded a dang blow towards his head. He tried to ward off the same and as a result of which it hit on his forearm. Ishar Singh, Shankar and Gurdev intervened and rescued the defendant from the hands of Joginder Singh with great difficulty. Thus according to the version of defendant in his complaint against the plaintiff before the Judicial Magistrate, Shankar, Gurdev Singh and Ishar Singh were the persons who intervened and rescued him from Joginder Singh, the companion of the plaintiff. But surprisingly enough, the defendant has not produced any of them to rebut the case of the plaintiff but has produced one Gurbachan Singh DW1 who was not at all named in the complaint as an eye witness of the occurrence of assault upon the defendant. Therefore, no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the statement of Gurbachan Singh DW1. Moreover, this witness has stated in his examination-in-chief that in the way Chanan Singh and Joginder Singh met Surjit Singh. Chanan Singh gave lalkara and Joginder Singh gave a soti blow. Surjit Singh told about this occurrence to him (Gurcharan Singh DW1) and he took him to the police station. It is nowhere stated by Surjit Singh defendant while appearing as DW2 that he ever narrated the occurrence to Gurbachan Singh DW1. Therefore, the statement of Gurbachan Singh has no evidenciary value whatsoever. Statement of the complainant as already discussed above is not at all trustworthy. Therefore, taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, I am fully convinced and stand persuaded to hold that the defendant filed a false complaint against the plaintiff and maliciously prosecuted him U/s 325 IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura and in which case the plaintiff was discharged. This issue, therefore, stands proved and is accordingly held in favour of the plaintiff." ;