Delhi District Court
Umang Taneja vs Sh. D V Gupta And Ors on 1 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA :
DISTRICT JUDGE-07, TIS HAZARI COURTS (WEST), DELHI.
CS No. 1078/2018
CNR NO.DLWT010085682018
IN THE MATTER OF :
SH. UMANG TANEJA
S/o Late Sh. R.S. Taneja
R/o 127, Meera Enclave,
New Delhi-110027. ......Plaintiff
Versus
1.SH. D.V. GUPTA S/o Sh. H.D. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs) ia. SMT. SUNITA GUPTA (WIFE) (ALREADY DEFENDANT NO.2) W/o Late Sh. D.V. Gupta.
ib. ARYAN GUPTA
ic. ARIAN GUPTA
Both minor sons of Late Sh. D.V. Gupta.
All R/o B-407, Meera Bagh,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-65.
Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 1/23
2. MS. SUNITA GUPTA W/o Sh. D.V. Gupta.
R/o B-407, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, N. Delhi-110065.
3. UNION OF INDIA Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, Delhi Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
5. SH. NARINDER CHAWLA, ACP, Prime Minister Security Cell, C-613, Type-3, Sarojini Nagar, Estate Quarters, New Delhi-110023.
6. SH. KULDEEP SINGH Inspector Vth Battalion, New Police Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009.
No.D-1/97 PIS No.16950165 ......Defendants SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.85,00,000/- (RUPEES EIGHTY FIVE LACS ONLY) AS DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
Date of institution of the Suit : 19.09.2018 Date of Judgment was reserved : 28.04.2025 Date of Judgment : 01.05.2025
Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 2/23 ::- J U D G M E N T -::
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking recovery of Rs.85,00,000/- as damages alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum.
2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT The necessary facts for the adjudication of the present suit, as stated in the plaint, are as under :
2.1. The plaintiff is a highly educated person who is imparting knowledge all around the globe and a law abiding citizen having no criminal antecedents and possessing a good reputation and status in the society. He is also a regular income tax payee to the concerned department.
2.2. The defendant no.1 and 2 in collusion with defendant no.5, who was working in Delhi Police and posted as SHO at Police Station Paschim Vihar at the relevant time and his subordinate / defendant no.6 filed a false Kalandra bearing no. K-1152 under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. vide DD No.12-A against him on the intervening night of 29/30.05.2003 on a false complaint of defendant no. 1 and 2 and also unlawfully detained him at the Police Station. After facing trial for six months, he was finally acquitted by the Ld. SEM vide order dated 14.10.2003 with the observations that there were no allegations against Umang Taneja.
Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 3/23 2.3. After the aforesaid acquittal of plaintiff, defendant no.1 and 2 again colluded with defendant no.5 and 6 and filed a false FIR bearing no.397/2005, under Section 509 IPC, Police Station Paschim Vihar and in pursuance of their conspiracy, he was called at the Police Station on 10.05.2005 i.e. a day prior to registration of FIR, where he was subjected to threats and mental harassment by defendant no.5 and 6 and presssurised to take back the complaint case filed by him against defendant no.1 and 2, otherwise threatened to be implicated in a false case. Thereafter on the next day, the aforesaid false FIR was registered against him without proper investigation and despite availability, no independent witness was examined.
2.4. In pursuance of the aforesaid false FIR, the plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted and pressurised to sell his house which was in the neighbourhood of defendant no.1 and 2.
2.5. The plaintiff has to suffer a lot of mental pain, harassment and unlawful detention due to the false FIR filed against him at the instance of defendant no.1 and 2 and he was ultimately acquitted by the Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 21.09.2017 from the charge under the aforesaid FIR.
2.6. The plaintiff has suffered a lot of mental pain and financial losses due to the unlawful malicious prosecution initiated against him at the instance of defendant no.1 and 2 in collusion with defendant no.5 and
6. Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 4/23 2.7. The defendant no.3 and 4 being employers of defendant no.5 and 6 are also liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for the mental and financial harassment suffered by him.
3. Summons for settlement of the issues of the present suit were issued to the defendants, the same received back duly executed and written statement has been filed only on behalf of defendant no.1 and 2 and defendant no.3 to 6 choose not to file their written statement and thereafter they were proceeded ex-parte.
4.CASE OF DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2.
4.1. The plaintiff has no cause of action to seek any damages from them.
4.2. The judgment dated 21.09.2017 passed by Ld. Sessions Court in the Criminal Appeal no.54613/16, FIR no. 397/05 under Section 509 IPC, Police Station Paschim Vihar, Delhi whereby the plaintiff was acquitted is under challenge before Hon'ble High Court under Section 372 (proviso) read with S. 482 of Cr.P.C. and the notice of the said appeal has already been issued to the plaintiff for causing his appearance, hence the acquittal of plaintiff is sub judice and cannot be said to have become final.
4.3. The plaintiff has been involved in several criminal cases and out of them in one FIR No. 397/2005 under Section 325 IPC, he was convicted and released on probation by the Ld. Court after hearing Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 5/23 arguments on the point of sentence.
4.4. The plaintiff is also facing an another prosecution before the Court of Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Delhi in complaint case CC No.14333/16 titled as 'Dr. D.V. Gupta and Anr. Vs. Umang Taneja'.
4.5. The plaintiff, who is a convict cannot claim himself to be a law abiding citizen, hence, he has falsely stated in his plaint that he is a law abiding citizen, having no previous criminal antecedents.
4.6. The plaintiff is neither highly educated nor holds any degree from a recognized Mechanical Engineering College and on the other hand, both defendant no.1 and 2 are highly qualified persons, defendant no.1 is a renowned international scientist and educator having earned several degrees from the most reputed Universities in the World and defendant no.2, who is wife of defendant no.1, is also a qualified Post Graduate in Finance and working in a foreign bank for the last many years.
4.7. The detention of plaintiff under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. was in accordance with the law.
4.8. Ld. Appellate Court acquitted the plaintiff by giving benefit of doubt and the said finding does not amount to falsify the contents of FIR No. 397/2005, which was got lodged against him at their instance.
Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 6/23 4.9. The contents of FIR No. 397/2005 are absolutely correct and genuine and there was no illegality in the prosecution of the plaintiff upon the basis of the said FIR. Hence, the plaintiff has not suffered any mental trauma, harassment, agony or loss of reputation due to any unlawful prosecution which could entitle him to damages sought by him through the present suit. The claim of the plaintiff is false and bogus and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. Replication was filed on behalf of plaintiff on 12.07.2019 to the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no.1 and 2 wherein the contents of the Written Statement were denied and averments of the plaint reiterated.
6. During the course of trial, defendant no.1 expired on 19.12.2019 and his legal heirs were impleaded on an application moved on behalf of plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC.
7. Thereafter, based upon pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed on 09.05.2023:--
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for Rs.85,00,000/- as damages on account of malicious prosecution alongwith pendente llite and future interest @ 12% p.a., as prayed for? OPP. (2) Relief.
8. PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON. 8.1. In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 7/23 tendered his evidence affidavit Ex.PW-1/X in his examination-in- chief.
8.2. In his evidence, the PW-1 has relied upon the following documents:
A. True copy of Aadhar Card as Ex.PW-1/1 (OSR); B. True copy of ITR for the years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 as Ex.PW-1/2 (colly);
C. True copy of Certificate of Recognition provided to him by the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Canada as Ex.PW-1/3 (OSR); D. Photocopy of Certificate of Recognition provided to him by Amarjeet Sohi, Member of Parliament, Edmonton Mill Woods, Canada as Ex.PW-1/4 (OSR);
E. True copy of Passport and Visa as Ex.PW-1/5 (OSR); F. Photocopy of Acquittal Order by Ld. SEM dated 14.10.2003 as Mark P1;
G. Photocopy of Acquittal Order by Ld. ASJ-West as Ex.PW-1/7 (OSR);
H. Legal notice to defendant no.1 and 2 dated 14.06.2018 as Ex.PW-1/8;
I. Legal notice to defendant no.5 and 6 dated 03.08.2018 as Ex.PW-1/9;
J. Courier receipts as Ex.PW-1/10 and Ex.PW-1/11; K. Postal receipts as Ex.PW-1/12 and Ex.PW-1/13; L. Tracking reports of Courier agency as Mark A and Mark B; and M. Tracking reports of Postal Department as Mark C and Mark D. Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 8/23 During cross examination, photocopy of Acquittal Order by Ld. SEM dated 14.10.2003 as already Mark P1 was put to PW-1 as Ex.PW-1/D1.
9. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff evidence was closed.
10. No witness was examined on behalf of defendant. Accordingly, defence evidence was closed.
11. I have heard Ld. counsels for both the parties. I have gone through the written submissions as well as evidence on record.
12. My issue-wise finding is as under:--
13. ISSUE NO.1.
Whether plaintiff is entitled for Rs.85,00,000/- as damages on account of malicious prosecution alongwith pendente llite and future interest @ 12% p.a., as prayed for? OPP. 13.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that he is an intellectual holding a special position and reputation in the society. PW-1 has deposed that he has been imparting knowledge all around the globe and an income tax payee who is paying his taxes regularly to the concerned Department. PW-1 has deposed that he was booked by Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 9/23 defendant no.5 and 6, Delhi Police officials who were posted at Police Station Paschim Vihar at the relevant time, in collusion with defendant no.1 and 2 in a false kalandra under Section 107/151 of Cr.P.C. on the intervening night of 29/30.05.2003 and in pursuance thereof, he was illegally detained at Police Station and had to face trial for six months and finally acquitted by Ld. SEM vide order dated 14.10.2003. PW-1 has further deposed that defendant no.1 and 2 again in collusion with defendant no.5 and 6 got lodged a false FIR bearing no.397/2005 under Section 509 IPC against him and in pursuance thereof, he was chargesheeted by defendant no.5 and 6 without any proper investigation and consequently he had to face trial of the aforesaid FIR for almost 14 years and convicted by the Ld. Trial Court as well, but finally got acquitted by the Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 21.09.2017 Ex.PW-1/7 and owing to the said trial, he suffered severe financial losses as well as loss of reputation in the Society and amongst his colleagues and relatives. PW-1 has further deposed that defendant no.5 and 6 despite being police officials colluded with defendant no.1 and 2 and acted maliciously against him and framed him in false cases which caused him mental agony, pain and loss of reputation.
13.2. In rebuttal, no witness has been examined on behalf of either of the defendants.
13.3. Before getting any further, it is pertinent to highlight that defendant no.1 Late Sh. D.V. Gupta, who is represented by his LRs Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 10/23 and defendant no.2, Smt. Sunita Gupta were husband and wife while defendant no.3 and 4 are Union of India and Commissioner, Delhi Police respectively and defendant no.5 and 6 are the police officials who were posted at Police Station Paschim Vihar at the relevant time.
13.4. In a nutshell, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking damages for the loss of reputation and mental and physical agony faced by him due to the alleged malicious prosecution suffered by him at the hands of the defendants by taking the plea that he faced trials of several false criminal cases for almost 14 years, launched by defendant no.5 and 6 at the instance of defendant no.1 and 2.
13.5. Now, coming to the factual matrix of the present case and as defendant no.3 is Union of India and defendant no.4, 5 and 6 are the public servants, who were working with Delhi Police at the relevant time, so before getting any further, it is apposite to adjudicate the issue of maintainability of the present suit / claim seeking damages for malicious prosecution against them.
13.6. Section 80 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) mandates a prior formal notice of two months, in case of filing a claim against the Government or a public officer in respect to any act purported to be done by such public officer in his official capacity and it enforces a complete bar against the institution of a suit against the Government or a public officer in respect of any act purported to be done by him in his official capacity until the Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 11/23 expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the Secretary to Government or Collector of the concerned District and in the case of a public officer delivered to him or left at his office, stating the particulars mentioned in sub Section 3 of Section 80 CPC.
13.7. In the present suit seeking damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has impleaded Union of India as defendant no.3 and defendant no.4, 5 and 6, the public servants working with Delhi Police i.e. Government of India at the relevant time. However, it is a matter of record that the plaintiff has neither pleaded nor brought on record any material indicating the compliance of service of statutory notice under Section 80 CPC, which is a mandatory pre-requisite for the institution of a claim / suit against Government or a public servant. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of the plaintiff against defendant no.3, 4, 5 and 6 deserves rejection on this technical ground itself.
13.8. Secondly, as defendant no.4, 5 and 6 are admittedly the officials of Delhi Police and governed by The Delhi Police Act, 1978, so before adjudicating any claim / suit instituted against them, a reference to Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act is mandatory alongwith Article 74 of The Limitation Act which provides that for seeking compensation for malicious prosecution, the limitation period of one year starts running from the date when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. Section 140 of the Delhi Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 12/23 Police Act is reproduced below :
"140. Bar to suits and prosecution.-- (1) In any case of alleged offence by a police or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such police officer or other person, by any act done under colour of duty or authority or in excess of any such duty or authority, or wherein it shall appear to suit shall not be entertained and if entertained shall be dismissed if it is instituted, more than three months after the date of the act complained of:
Provided that any such prosecution against a police officer or other person may be entertained by the court, if instituted with the previous sanction of the Administrator, within one year from the date of the offence.
(2) In the case of an intended suit on account of such a wrong as aforesaid, the person intending to sue shall give to the alleged wrongdoer not less than one month's notice of the intended suit with sufficient description of the wrong complained of, and if no such notice has been given before the institution of the suit, it shall be dismissed.
(3) The plaint shall set forth that a notice as aforesaid has been served on the defendant and the date of such service and shall state what tender or amends, if any, has been made by the defendant and Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 13/23 a copy of the said notice shall be annexed to the plaint endorsed or accompanied with a declaration by the plaintiff of the time and manner of service thereof."
13.9. This Court has referred to the aforesaid provision of law as it is a well settled position of law that Section 140 of The Delhi Police Act is a special provision with respect to limitation of suits and prosecutions against Delhi Police Officers and it shall apply instead of general law of limitation under The Limitation Act for determining the period of limitation. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Professor Sumer Chand Vs. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 64.
13.10. So, in light of the fact that Section 140 of The Delhi Police Act clearly prescribes a time period of three months to file any suit against a police official, the present claim against defendant no.4, 5 and 6 is clearly barred by law as the present suit has been filed on 18.09.2018 seeking damages for malicious prosecution while the plaintiff was acquitted by Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 21.09.2017, the date from which the limitation period seeking damages started running.
13.11. In a nutshell, this Court is of the opinion that in light of Section 140 The Delhi Police Act as well, the claim of plaintiff against defendant no.4, 5 and 6 is not maintainable, being barred by law.
Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 14/23 13.12. Now coming to the substance / core of the case of the plaintiff. The entire case of the plaintiff is built upon the plea that defendant no.1 and 2 in connivance with defendant no.5 and 6 first initiated unlawful proceedings against him under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and when he got acquitted by Ld. SEM, the aforesaid defendants again colluded and got him framed in a false FIR No. 397/2005 under Section 509 IPC and in pursuance of which he had to face a criminal trial for almost 14 years and he ultimately got acquitted by Ld. Sessions Court on 21.09.2017 and through the present suit, he has sought damages for the pain, suffering, agony and the loss of reputation suffered by him due to the aforesaid alleged false criminal prosecutions initiated by defendants against him. The plaintiff has pleaded that he was a victim of malicious prosecution and now defendants are liable to compensate him for the damages suffered by him owing to the same.
13.13. In a nutshell, the crux of the case set up by the plaintiff lies within the four corners of the tort of malicious prosecution. Malicious prosecution means "the institution of a criminal or civil proceedings for an improper purpose and without probable cause". In Trilok Chand Bansal Vs. Bharat Bhushan Bansal, CS(OS) 470/2016, Date of Decision - 23.03.2017, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that for establishing the liability of defendant for the tort of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is required to establish the co-existence of the following four elements:
Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 15/23 A. Initiation or continuation of a law suit;
B. Favourable termination of law suit;
C. Lack of probable cause; and
D. Malice.
13.14. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that in a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must disclose in the plaint, the ulterior reason or purpose for which the defendant prosecuted him.
13.15. Succinctly stating, Malicious Prosecution is a civil wrong referring to the wrongly initiation of a legal proceeding, usually a criminal one, against someone without probable cause and with malice, with the intent to harm or harass and to establish a claim for damages, the plaintiff also needs to prove that the proceedings initiated against him at the instance of the defendant ended favourably for him.
13.16. Now, this Court will consider as to whether the case set up by the plaintiff embodies four requisites of the malicious prosecution as mentioned above.
A. Initiation or continuance of a law suit
(i) In the present suit, the plaintiff who examined himself as PW-1 deposed that several criminal prosecutions, in the form of a kalandra under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and FIR no.397/2005 under Section 509 IPC were launched against him by defendant no.1 and 2 in collusion with defendant no.5 and 6. It be noted that the plaintiff has Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 16/23 neither brought on record the complete file of kalandra proceedings which took place before Ld. Special Executive Magistrate nor the aforesaid FIR under Section 509 IPC. However, the plaintiff has brought on record the copy of judgment dated 21.09.2017 passed by Ld. Session Court in Criminal Appeal No. 54613/2016, titled as Umang Taneja Vs. State, Government of NCT of Delhi as Ex.PW-1/7 reflecting his acquittal from a case / charge under Section 509 IPC and the fact that the aforesaid judgment pertains to the plaintiff and it was passed in pursuance of the criminal prosecution initiated by defendant no.1 and 2 against him has not been disputed by the defendants, hence, the present requirement of initiation of the law suit stands satisfied.
(ii) However, at this stage, it is relevant to make a reference to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gangadhar Padhi Vs. Prem Singh, (2014) 211 DLT 104, wherein it was held that if a person is prosecuted / chargesheeted by the police, which is an impartial agency constituted by the State for investigating the offences, the said fact denies the element of malicious prosecution on the part of the person against whom the claim for damages has been filed.
B. Favourable termination of law suit.
(i) It is a matter of record that plaintiff was ultimately acquitted by Ld. Session Court in Criminal Appeal No. 54613/2016, titled as Umang Taneja Vs. State, Government of NCT of Delhi vide order Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 17/23 dated 21.09.2017 Ex.PW-1/7 reflecting his acquittal from the charge under Section 509 IPC and it is a matter of record that the defendants have not stepped into the witness box as witnesses for rebutting the aforesaid plea of the plaintiff. For the sake of completion, it be noted that a plea has been raised by defendant no.1 and 2 in their joint written statement that the aforesaid judgment of Ld. Sessions Court has been challenged by them before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, however, the aforesaid plea has remained unsubstantiated as neither they have brought on record any document reflecting the aforesaid proceedings before Hon'ble High Court nor stepped into the witness box for stating the said fact. Accordingly, the pre-condition of favourable termination of law suit stands satisfied in favour of the plaintiff.
C. Lack of probable cause.
(i) In Gangadhar Padhy Vs. Prem Singh, (2014) 211 DLT 104, it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that to show that there was no reasonable and probable cause, it has to be shown that the defendant did not believe in the plaintiff's guilt. In simple terms, 'probable cause' means a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds that the proceedings initiated against the accused / plaintiff were justifiable. In the same breath, it should also be noted that a person can be acquitted and yet there may be a reasonable and probable cause for his prosecution.
(ii) In a nutshell, the plaintiff needs to establish that the prosecution Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 18/23 did not believe in the guilt of the accused. However, it is a matter of record that the plaintiff has not brought on record any material which could even infer or indicate that at the time of initiating either the kalandra proceedings or lodging of FIR no.397/2005 under Section 509 IPC, defendant no.1 and 2 did not believe in the guilt of the plaintiff and the said omission on the part of the plaintiff is material as it is a well settled position of law that while adjudicating the claim of damages for malicious prosecution, the Civil Court is required to undertake an independent inquiry in the matter about the presence of probable cause on the part of the defendant and the absence of the same cannot be presumed only from the fact that the plaintiff was acquitted by the criminal court from the offence alleged by the defendant.
(iii) Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to establish the lack of probable cause on the part of the defendant.
D. Malice.
(i) It is a well settled position of law that a prosecution can be held malicious only if it is found to be vindictive, initiated to malign the plaintiff before the public or guided by purely personal consideration. In a nutshell, malicious prosecution is the institution of a criminal or civil proceeding for a improper purpose and without probable cause, a wrongly act done intentionally without just cause or excuse.
(ii) It be noted that the plaintiff has not even pleaded, let alone Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 19/23 bringing on record any material for establishing the ulterior motive on the part of the defendants for initiating the kalandra proceedings and lodging of FIR No.397/2005 under Section 509 IPC. In a nutshell, the plaintiff has not disclosed or established the ulterior reason / purpose, which persuaded the defendants to launch alleged false prosecutions against him.
(iii) At this stage, it is relevant to highlight the settled position of law that bald assertions of facts are of no use to the parties to the suit unless they are backed by the admissible evidence. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in A.B. Govardhan Vs. P. Ragothaman, Civil Appeal no.9975-76 of 2024. This Court has referred to the aforesaid position of law as the same squarely covers the present case wherein there is a complete absence of admissible evidence for establishing the alleged malice on the part of the defendants towards the plaintiff.
(iv) Succinctly stating, there is no material on record which could establish the element of malice on part of the defendants for initiating kalandra proceedings and lodging FIR no. 397/2005 under Section 509 IPC, which got terminated vide the acquittal orders dated 14.10.2003 and 21.09.2017 respectively.
13.17. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the plaintiff fails to satisfy the co-existence of all the aforesaid four elements which are necessary for establishing the plea Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 20/23 of malicious prosecution.
13.18. Besides the aforesaid discussion, the legal position pertaining to tort of malicious prosecution can be summarised to the effect that to be successful in a suit for malicious prosecution, it is imperative for the plaintiff to show that the proceedings instituted against him for an offence were groundless and were instituted by the defendant without any probable cause and for indirect and improper motive. The plaintiff is also required to establish that the defendant did not believe in his guilt and at the same time, the element of malice should also be established and he is required to establish the specific ulterior reason or purpose for which the defendant prosecuted him, the purpose sought to be achieved by the defendant through the prosecution.
13.19. Briefly stating, this Court is of the opinion that from the material available on record the plaintiff has failed to establish that the kalandra proceedings and the FIR no.397/2005 initiated by defendants against the plaintiff were directed against him for his false implication and criminal law was set into motion without any reasonable and probable cause.
13.20. Moreover, this Court is of the opinion that a mere acquittal in the criminal proceedings will not automatically prove malicious prosecution as what is relevant to succeed in a Civil Suit seeking damages is that it must be found that the criminal complaint or FIR was initiated without reasonable and probable cause and for Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 21/23 determining so, the Civil Court is required to give an independent finding to the said effect and the mere production of judgment passed by the Criminal Court is not sufficient. In the same vein, it is also relevant to point out that the judgment in a Criminal Case between the parties which has resulted in acquittal is not binding on the Civil Court and any finding in the criminal proceedings by no stretch of imagination would be binding between the parties during the civil proceedings. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vishnu Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, (2009) 13 SCC 729.
13.21. At this stage, it is also relevant to highlight the observation made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Anil Dutt Vs. Union of India, 2015 SCC Online Delhi 7615 that an action for malicious prosecution is not favoured in law and should be properly guarded and its true principles strictly adhere to, since the public policy favours the exposure of a crime and it is highly desirable that those reasonably suspected of crime be subjected to the process of criminal law for the protection of Society and the citizen be accorded immunity for bonafide efforts to bring ante social members of the Society to the Bar of Justice.
13.22. So, the entire foregoing discussion can be concluded / summarised to the effect that there is not an iota of evidence which could indicate that the plaintiff suffered malicious prosecution at the hands of the defendants. Hence, he is not entitled for any damages.
Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 22/23 13.23. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
14. RELIEF.
14.1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit / claim of the plaintiff seeking damages from the defendants for his alleged malicious prosecution stands dismissed.
15. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
16. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
17. File be consigned to record room. MANOJ Digitally by MANOJ signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.05.01 SHARMA 16:38:55 +0530 Announced in the open court (MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA) on 1st MAY, 2025. DJ-07/WEST/THC/DELHI Sh. Umang Taneja Vs. Sh. D.V. Gupta (Since deceased through his LRs.) and Others Page: 23/23