Amol Rattan Singh, J. - (1.) This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff whose suit had been decreed in his favour by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2012. However, on an appeal filed by the respondents (defendants), the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, set aside that decree and allowed the appeal, dismissing the suit, vide his judgment and decree dated 20.05.2014.
(2.) The appellant -plaintiffs' suit was for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - as damages for what he termed as malicious prosecution by the respondents against him. The case set up by the appellant before the learned Civil Judge was that he had remained Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khojepur, from 1998 to 2003 and was also serving as a Seasonal Clerk in the Cooperative Sugar Mill at Paniar. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 (Girdhari Lal) had filed a false and frivolous complaint against the appellant, his brother, his cousin and his uncle, under Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Ss. 379, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC. They were summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 10.06.2002 and thereafter they were subjected to trial by the learned Special Court, where respondents No. 2 and 3 appeared as witnesses in favour of respondent No. 1. However, the appellant and his co -accused were acquitted by that Court vide judgment dated 30.08.2006.
(3.) In the complaint, respondent No. 1 had stated that he belongs to the 'Ramdasia' caste, whereas the appellant and his associates belong to the 'Sikh caste'. Respondent No. 1 was a labourer by profession and was in possession of a plot measuring 21/2/3 marlas within the 'abadi' of the village since 1947 and that he constructed his 'haveli' on it, where he also used to tether his cattle. He had a particular quality of bricks, bajri and cow dung cakes and five wooden pieces of 10 ft. each lying in the premises and had filed a civil suit seeking injunction against the appellant, in respect of that property. That civil suit was stated to be pending at the time of filing of the complaint by respondent No. 1. It was further alleged in the complaint that on 17.05.1999, the appellant and his associates, along with police personnel and other persons, came to the 'haveli' of respondent No. 1 at about 4.00 p.m., with the intention to dispossess him and had forcibly taken away some articles from there. Thereafter, on 02.06.1999, it was further alleged in the complaint, that the appellant and his associates were standing in front of the house of one Gurbaksh Singh at about 5.00 p.m., where the 1st respondent, accompanied by respondents No. 2 and 3, approached them (appellant and his associates) and requested them to return the articles taken by them on 17.05.1999. However, the appellant abused respondent No. 1 by caste and also exhorted his companions to teach him a lesson. They, thereafter, allegedly slapped respondent No. 1 and threatened to kill him if he reported the matter to the Panchayat and other authorities. Consequently, the complaint stated, that the appellant lowered the status of respondent No. 1 by humiliating him in public. Therefore, a criminal complaint was filed by the 1st respondent, against the appellant.;