- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby, an ex parte decree to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000 was passed by holding that the plaintiff had suffered mentally, physically and there was a loss to her reputation and she had also lost her salary due to dismissal from service. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 5,52,262 on account of damages for malicious prosecution of the plaintiff.
(2.) That the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,52,262 on account of damages for malicious prosecution of the plaintiff in FIR No. 200 dated 12.10.1990 lodged at Police Station, City Tarn Taran. It was alleged that the plaintiff was appointed as Senior Medical Officer in the year 1971 and later on promoted as Medical Superintendent and worked upto 14.10.1990. The case of the plaintiff was that there were two churches namely Anglican Church and the other known as Church of Northern India (C.N.I.) Hospital known as St. Mary's Hospital, Tarn Taran and this was run by Amritsar Diecese Trust Association and in brief A.D.T.A and the said association was under the Anglican Church. The FIR registered against the plaintiff was under Sections 408/381 IPC by defendant no. 1 on the ground that embezzlement of the amount had been committed in the St. Mary's Hospital, Tarn Taran. The allegation was that the hospital was being run by Rev. Stanley Haque and Rev. Babu Masih and the said persons had never lodged any complaint. In pursuance of the said FIR, the plaintiff was arrested and thereafter, after 3-1/2 years, the Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran had submitted a discharge report in the plaintiff's favour and the said discharge report was confirmed by the Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff was allowed to join her duties by the President namely Rev. Stanley Haque and Rev. Babu Masih and she was getting a pay of Rs. 3,635 per month in the year 1989 and the balance of the arrears came to Rs. 2,06,562. Accordingly, she claimed the amount as per her sufferings, mentally, physically and loss to reputation.
(3.) The defendants initially appeared but later on were proceeded ex parte and in order to substantiate her case, the plaintiff stepped into the witness box and deposed to the facts of the case and brought to the notice of the said Court regarding the false lodging of the FIR and the discharge report before the Court on 29.09.1993. It was also noticed that liberty had been given to the complainants to file a complaint but no complaint was filed. Accordingly, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the case was false and the plaintiff had suffered mentally, physically and there was a loss to her reputation and salary due to dismissal from service and thereafter she had been reinstated and accordingly held that the defendants were liable to pay Rs. 2,50,000 accumulatively. Since the suit had been filed as an indigent person, the recovery of ad valorem Court fees was directed to be deposited by the plaintiff on the amount recovered.;