TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebuttal considering the fact that the onus of the issue as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover ₹ 5,00,000/- for his alleged malicious prosecution by the petitioner, was on him. He was required to discharge the burden at the initial stage and not after the defendant had led his evidence. In support of his argument, he referred to judgments of this court in Surjit Singh and others vs Jagtar Singh and others 2007 (1) PLR 552, Ram Rattan vs Anand Pandit and others 2009 (5) R. C. R. (Civil) 696, and Mohinder Singh vs Balbir Singh and others 2011 (2) PLR 390. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that acquittal in a criminal case is not enough to claim compensation for malicious prosecution. Before the civil court the party is required to establish its case beyond doubt that there was malicious prosecution. In support of his submission, he referred to Major Gian Singh vs S. P. Batra AIR 1973 Punjab and Haryana 400, Muthuswamy vs Siddhan and others 2005 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 79, Sugan Kanwar vs Rakesh 2007 (1) R. C. R. (Criminal) 349, Gulabchand Motilal Rathi vs National Textile Corporation and others 2007 (4) RCR(Criminal) 195, Ram Lal and etc. vs Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner. It is the primary basis for claiming compensation. 7. On pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of ₹ 5,00,000/- for malicious prosecution ? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Relief. 8. The onus of the main issue, namely, as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover ₹ 5,00,000/- on account of his malicious prosecution is on the plaintiff. 9. As to whether mere acquittal of an accused in a criminal case is sufficient to presume that he has been maliciously prosecuted, hence entitled to compensation on account thereof, has been gone into by a Division Bench of this Court in Major Gian Singh's case (supra), wherein it was opined that acquittal of the plaintiff in earlier proceedings may some times give rise to a presumption that there was no reasonable and probable cause for his prosecution but still presumption is rebuttable. In a suit claiming dama ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x xx xx 14. First of all, the burden of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause is on the plaintiff and thus it is the plaintiff who has to undertake task of proving a negative. xx xx xx 15. Reasonable and probable cause means a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds, that the proceedings are justified. xx xx xx 16. As regards grounds for belief, even if the defendant honestly believed the proceedings to be justified, there is no reasonable an probable cause unless this belief was based on reasonable grounds and it can be determined by the facts actually known to the defendants at the time when he laid the information and subsequently proceeded with the prosecution, and not to the facts as they factually existed.... xx xx xx 28... To lodge a F.I.R. which is not wrong to the knowledge of the person who files it in the police station, can never be said to be a wrong because whether it results in conviction or acquittal is absolutely immaterial to determine the question whether the doer of such an act can be said to be wrong doer and as such the bond of necessity between the wrong doer and the remedy of wrong do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case (supra), opined that a party cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues, the initial burden of proof whereof is on that party. The relevant extract thereof is as under:- 15. In our opinion, Order 18 Rule 3 of the CPC would not give a right to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. Accepting such an interpretation would be to ignore a vital part of Order 18 Rule 3 of the CPC. The rule clearly postulates that the party beginning, may, at his option, either produce his evidence on these issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other parties. No matter, how liberally a provision in the statute is required to be interpreted, by interpretation it cannot be amended. Whilst construing a statutory provision the Court cannot reconstruct it. The rule consciously provides the parties with an option either to produce the evidence in support of the issues or to reserve it by making a statement to that effect. The statement itself may well be liberally construed to avoid any unnecessary technical obstacles. One such example has been given by the Division Bench in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
