Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1056 - DELHI HIGH COURTSuit for recovery of damages and compensation for malicious prosecution from the defendant - Held that:- This suit for compensation for malicious prosecution filed during the pendency of the appeal against the order of acquittal is held to be premature and the plaint liable to be rejected. All prosecutions ending in an acquittal cannot be said to be malicious. There is no presumption in law of a prosecution ending in an acquittal being malicious. Thus a plaint in a suit for compensation for malicious prosecution merely stating that the plaintiff was prosecuted by or at the instance of the defendant and was acquitted, would not disclose a cause of action. There can be manifold reasons for acquittal. Every acquittal is not a consequence of the prosecution being malicious. It cannot be lost sight of that the remedy of compensation has been provided for “malicious prosecution” and not for “wrongful or uncalled for or failed prosecution”. The tort of malicious prosecution requires proof of (a) initiation or continuation of a lawsuit; (b) lack of probable cause; (c) malice; and, (d) and favorable termination of lawsuit. The plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution has to necessarily disclose in the plaint the ulterior reason or purpose for which the defendant prosecuted him. The plaintiff in the present case has not disclosed any such particulars whatsoever. Though it is pleaded that the defendant is the son of the younger brother of the plaintiff but there is no averment as to the purpose sought to be achieved by the defendant by so prosecuting the plaintiff. As in this context enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, whether not the dishonoured cheques were drawn on the bank account of the plaintiff.The counsel for the plaintiff replied in the affirmative.There is absolutely no averment in the plaint as to how the said cheques landed in the hands of the defendant and as to what motive the defendant was seeking to attain by prosecuting the plaintiff. Thus hold the plaint to be not disclosing a cause of action for the relief claimed of compensation for malicious prosecution. Thus the suit is misconceived and is dismissed with costs of ₹ 20,000/- to the defendant.
|