malicious prosecution

Question 1

D.N. Bandopadhyaya v. Union of India

Answer 1

Prosecution means the laws should be set in motion by making a complaint before an authority exercising judicial powers.

Question 2

Kapoor Chand v . Jagdish Chand

Answer 2

The Punjab High Court held that the proceedings before Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Council is prosecution and a suit for malicious prosecution can be lodged for such proceedings

Question 3

Hazoor Singh v . Ganga Singh

Answer 3

The Rajasthan High Court considered a person as a prosecutor in the
following circumstances:

The defendant’ s information was false in his own knowledge;

The defendant brought false evidence;

The defendant tried to influence police for involving innocent person;
The police was influenced to start prosecution.

Question 4

Pandit Gaya Parshad Tewari v. Sardar Bhagat Singh,

Answer 4

In an action for damages for malicious prosecution, it is not in all cases
necessary to show that the defendant is the person who actually
prosecutes.
Where the defendant has given to the police a report which is false to his
knowledge, and results in a prosecution by them, and has taken a
principal part in the conduct of the case both before the police and the
Magistrate, the remedy provided by this form of action is available to an
innocent plaintiff aggrieved by an unfounded charge.

Question 5

State of Bihar v. R.P. Baidya

Answer 5

Where the High Court orders quashing of the criminal case at the
cognizing stage being frivolous in nature, it puts an end to the criminal
proceedings launched against the plaintiff.

Question 6

Issardas v. Acissudomat

Answer 6

Where proceedings were withdrawn by the complainant as a result of settlement with one of the several persons complained against, the other
persons are entitled to bring an action for malicious prosecution.

Question 7

Sailaja Kaur v. Lallu

Answer 7

An illiterate villager had filed a suit concerning some land and had
engaged an advocate for the purpose. In a latter litigation, relating
probably to the same matter or connected matter the same advocate
appeared against the villager. The villager filed a complaint to the Bar
Council against the advocate for professional misconduct. The Bar
Council finding some similarity in the land in dispute ultimately came to
the conclusion that there were two different lands and gave the benefit
of doubt to the advocate.
 The advocate then sued the villager for malicious prosecution. As there
was reasonable and probable cause for the complaint made by the
villager before the Bar Council and further the institution of suit was not
motivated by malice, the court turned down the plea for malicious
prosecution.

Question 8

Three Rivers DC v. Bank of England

Answer 8

The House of Lords found that liability in the tort of misfeasance in public
office arose where the action of a public officer were carried out in the
knowledge of, or with reckless indifference to the probability of, injury
being caused to a claimant, or a class of persons of which the claimant
was a member.

Question 9

State of Tripura v. Ranjit Kumar Desnath

Answer 9

The plaintiff was found in possession of illegal materials, which he was not legally authorised to keep under license. Case was instituted by the competent authority for alleged violation of provisions of Essential Commodities Act.
The criminal case launched against the plaintiff was held to be not a
malicious prosecution.

Question 10

Ramlal v. Mahendra Singh

Answer 10

The plaintiff and his father were implicated in the offence of murder of the son of the complainant and were acquitted.
It was held that such acquittal or discharge cannot boomerang upon
defendant in a case for malicious prosecution. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to prove that the prosecution was malicious and was done with the intention to harass and defame the plaintiffs.

Question 11

Sheo Singh v. Ranjit Singh and Others

Answer 11

In order to succeed in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution,
existence of malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause have
to be established as separate facts. It cannot be inferred from the mere
absence of reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution that it is
malicious or vice-versa.

Question 12

Bank of India v. Lekhimoni Das

Answer 12

it was held by the Court that in cases of damages for malicious legal
process, the existence of malice, and absence of a probable and reasonable
the cause must be proved

Question 13

Padmanabhan Gangadharan v. Matheram Gangadharan,

Answer 13

In a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, the wilful behaviour of
lodging of a false complaint raises a presumption of existence of malice

Question 14

Martin v. Watson

Answer 14

The defendant maliciously made a groundless accusation of indecent
exposure against the plaintiff, who was subsequently prosecuted. Lord
Keith held that: “Where an individual falsely and maliciously gives a police
officer information indicating that some person is guilty of a criminal
offence and states that he is willing to give evidence in court of the matters
in question, it is properly to be inferred that he desires and intends that the
person he names should be prosecuted.”
 Lord Keith further held that: “Where the circumstances are such that the
facts relating to the alleged offence can be within the knowledge only of the
complainant, as was the position here, then it becomes virtually impossible
for the police officer to exercise any independent discretion or judgement,
and if a prosecution is instituted by the police officer the proper view of the
matter is that the prosecution has been procured by the complainant.

Question 15

C. Dakshin Moorthy v. K.K.B. Chettiar,

Answer 15

A frivolous complaint for cutting a tree was lodged by the defendant
although he had knowledge that it is a false complaint.
The Court inferred malicious intention with other elements.

Question 16

Sona Rani Dutta v. Debarata Dutta

Answer 16

The defendant filed FIR against the plaintiff and his sister alleged that
her ear ring was snatched away from her person whereby she had
sustained bleeding injury to her ear. Thus in order to set police machinery
and law into motion, the defendant added the offence of theft with the
offence of assault knowing well that plaintiff had not snatched away her
ear ring, the FIR was clearly lodged out of malice.

Question 17

Vishweshwar Shankarrao Deshmukh v. Narayan Vithoba Patil,

Answer 17

, Both the defendants hatched a conspiracy to involve the plaintiff in a false
criminal prosecution out of sheer enmity and only to suppress their
misconduct.
Plaintiff though was acquitted by criminal court suffered mental torture
and agony for a long period of four years and incurred expenses. Plaintiff
was awarded damages of Rs. 12, 500.

Question 18

State of Tripura v. Shri Hardhan Choudhry

Answer 18

Two criminal cases were filed by the forest officials against the plaintiff
for illegal felling of trees. The records showed that the plaintiff had
applied for extracting trees from his ‘jote land’ of others to the forest
Authority. No evidence was given that the seized trees were found on
‘khas land’ or in the protected forest.
 The prosecution was held to be malicious prosecution and Rs. 25, 000/0
were granted as damages to the plaintiff.

Question 19

Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam

Answer 19

The appellant’s stock of paddy and rice was seized and the appellant was
arrested for allegedly violating the Assam Food grains (Licensing and
Control) Order, 1961. The seized stock was sold. The criminal prosecution
launched against the appellant ended in discharge on the ground that
the Assam Control Order of 1961 was not in force at the time of search,
seizure and arrest of the appellant.
 The appellant filed a suit against the State and certain officers for
damages towards mental pain, social and public humiliation, wrongful
confinement and expenses incurred in defending the criminal cases as
well as for the value of the seized stock. High Court held that the defendants were guilty of malicious
prosecution, abuse of power and unauthorized action and granted relief
only in regard to pecuniary damages but, on the ground of vagueness of
pleadings and evidence dismissed the suit in respect of non-pecuniary
damages.
 The plaintiff filed the instant appeal for non-pecuniary damages. The
Supreme Court overruled the High Court judgment. It observed
“Prosecution launched by police officers under instructions from the
State Government, even though ultimately failing, held, could not be
said to be malicious or without reasonable or without probable cause.”

Question 20

Het Ram v. MadanGopal

Answer 20

The defendants allegedly made false allegations of setting their house on
fire against the plaintiff. The statement was made without any
reasonable and probable cause and was actuated by malice.
 The plaintiff was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 55, 000/- for
mental agony, loss of future business and for litigation expenditure.

Question 21

Antarajyami Sharma v. Padma Bewa,

Answer 21

The plaintiff was prosecuted in a criminal case for outraging the modesty
of a woman on allegation of the defendants who claimed to have seen
him committing the offence. These allegations were unfounded and the
plaintiff was acquitted.
 The court found that not only the plaintiff was innocent but also there
was no reasonable and probable cause for such an accusation.
 The defendants were held liable jointly and severally, to pay damages

Question 22

Savile v. Roberts

Answer 22

Holt C. J. gave classic definition of damage as ‘damage to a man’s fame
(or reputation), person or property.
 In other words, an unwarranted prosecution may damage a person’s
reputation. Further, harm to the person has been interpreted broadly to
include the threat of imprisonment and actual imprisonment. Harm to
property signifies the costs incurred by the claimant in defending the
charges.

Question 23

C.M. Agrawala v. Halar Salt and Chemical Works,

Answer 23

The Calcutta High Court held that the plaintiff can claim damage on the
following counts: damage to reputation, to the person, to the property

Question 24

Mohammed Amin v. Jogendra Kumar

Answer 24

To found an action for damages for malicious prosecution based upon
criminal proceedings the test is not whether the criminal proceedings,
the test is whether the proceedings have reached a stage at which
damage to the plaintiff results

Question 25

Jagdish Sahai v. Raunak Ram,

Answer 25

Charges of forgery were leveled against the plaintiff. The Trial Magistrate
clearly stated that the vice president or other members of the society
and not the plaintiff, who committed the offence.
 The complainant was not an expert so as to know by himself that the
resolution was forged or that it was forged to the plaintiff. The FIR was
lodged without seeking opinion of a handwriting expert. Persons
involved in the process through which truth could be known were even
not talked with. The FIR was lodged without collecting any evidence on
the point of forgery.
 The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient criminal trial for a
number of years only due to the vengeance of the complainant. Grant of
compensation of Rs. 1, 00, 000/- was held to be proper.