Delhi District Court
Chhida Singh vs S.N. Gupta on 17 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRABH DEEP KAUR, DJ-05, SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ NO. 1672/2018
CNR NO. DLSE01-009363-2018
In the matter of :-
Mr. Chhida Singh
S/o Late Sh. Rampal Singh,
R/o Flat No. 5-E, Pocket-III,
Mayur Vihar Phase-I, New Delhi -110093.
Also at :
D-35, Choudhary Milk Dairy,
Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi-91
.....Plaintiff
Vs.
Sh. S.N. Gupta (Som Nath Gupta),
S/o Sh. Kishan Lal Gupta,
R/o M-464, Second Floor, Guru Har Kishan Nagar,
Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi-110087
......Defendants
Date of Institution : 16.11.2018
Arguments heard on : 11.07.2024
Date of Judgment : 17.08.2024
SUIT FOR DAMAGES CLAIMING Rs. 20,00,000/- ALONGWITH
PENDENT LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
(1) Vide this Judgment, the suit of the plaintiff for damages alongwith
CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 1/23
Dated 17.08.2024Digitally signed
by PRABHDEEP
PRABHDEEP KAUR
KAUR Date: 2024.08.17
17:28:05 +0530
pendent lite and future interest filed against the defendant has been
disposed off.
(2) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is a retired Government
Servant retired from DDA. The defendant is also presently a retired Govt
servant, who had retired while working as Secretary in the DDA, though
his parental department was Ministry of Urban development, Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi. Earlier in the year 1994, the defendant was working
as Dy. Director Vigilance - DDA, Delhi, when he deliberately implicated
the plaintiff in false case without any basis out of ill-will, relating to an
enquiry with regard to illegal allotment of property no. 1161, Mukherjee
Nagar, New Delhi by DDA. In said case, the plaintiff was acquitted by
the Hon'ble Trial Court vide its order dated 15/10/2011. The present case
is being filed by the plaintiff to seek damages for the loss of his
reputation, suspension in his job, mental agony and all consequent
harassment suffered by the plaintiff for a long period of trial spanning
over twenty one years which was caused due to malicious prosecution by
the defendant. The plaintiff was appointed on regularized and permanent
post of KHALASI in DDA - Delhi on 05/03/1965. He had his clean
antecedent till 1994 when defendant intentionally, maliciously, out of ill-
will and grudge inserted the name of plaintiff in the Inquiry Report of
CVO (Chief Vigilance Officer DDA) dated 23/03/1994. The fact leading
to the inquiry reports were that in the year 1994, on an anonymous
information / complaint, a Vigilance enquiry was conducted by CVO
DDA, against some employees of the DDA, Delhi in respect of illegal
CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 2/23
Dated 17.08.2024
Digitally signed by
PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR
KAUR Date: 2024.08.17
17:28:14 +0530
allotment of the plot mentioned above and there were no allegations
against the plaintiff in the said complaint nor he was even called by the
Inquiry Officer during the course of entire inquiry. When CVO
concluded his enquiry and gave Inquiry Report dated 23/03/1994 there
were no allegations at all against the plaintiff. The above said inquiry
Report was submitted to the Director Vigilance - DDA and then it was
submitted to Vice Chairman who approved the same vide noting dated
23/3/1994, recommending action against the erring official / officers.
The defendant who was Dy. Director - Vigilance, DDA, during the
relevant period, while acting upon the recommendation to take action
against the erring officials whose names were given in said report, wrote
a complaint dated 24/3/1994 to the S.H.O. PS. Kotla Mubarakpur, New
Delhi for lodging an FIR. Despite the absence of name of plaintiff or
allegation against him in inquiry report of CVO, the name of the plaintiff
was inserted by the defendant in his complaint to SHO. P.S.Mubarakpur,
New Delhi. The insertion of the name of the plaintiff in the said
complaint dated 24/3/1994 given to the SHO by the Defendant was done
deliberately, melafidely and maliciously to put plaintiff to suffer
mentally, physically, socially and to spoil his career and to cause harm to
the plaintiff in his reputation and respect in the society. On the basis of
above said written complaint, an FIR bearing no. 102/1994 was lodged
U/S. 420/120B IPC, consequently plaintiff was arrested on 24/3/1994 and
was remanded to police custody and was released on bail on 26/3/1994.
In the said FIR, the name of the plaintiff was dragged in the challan
submitted by the IO U/S 173 Cr.P.C, despite there being no substance at
CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 3/23
Dated 17.08.2024
Digitally signed
by PRABHDEEP
PRABHDEEP KAUR
KAUR Date: 2024.08.17
17:28:21 +0530
all, leave aside the material substance on record of the case anywhere
against the plaintiff. Thereafter, after a trial for more than 17 ½ years,
plaintiff was finally acquitted on 15/10/2011. After the arrest, in the
above said false case, the plaintiff was suspended from his job and during
the pendency of the above said case and his suspension, the plaintiff was
superannuated w.e.f. 31/12/2002. The plaintiff was given the benefit of
provisional pension by DDA, however, all other retrial benefits including
gratuity, arrears of wages, leave enhancement were withheld by his
employer i.e. DDA and plaintiff was constrained to file a petition bearing
no. O.A. No. 1784/2013 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, to seek the same. However, the said petition was dismissed in
default. Though, thereafter, the plaintiff was given those retiral benefits
from his employer on parity basis when it allowed all the retiral benefits
to other accused person who were also tried in the said case and were
acquitted. Due to malafide and deliberate act of insertion of name of
plaintiff by the defendant in the complaint submitted by defendant to the
police for lodging FIR without any basis was illegal which caused
plaintiff to suffer immense mental, physical, economic, social and
employment suffering for more then 17 years and the same spoil the
whole life of plaintiff in every respect. The plaintiff also suffered in his
career, reputation in the society and passed these years in complete
ignominy and disrepute. The defendant was well aware that plaintiff was
not working in the concerned department which was involved in the
above case of illegal allotment. Even in the official observation of the
Finance member (DDA) made on 28.01.1995 in concerned File bearing
CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 4/23
Dated 17.08.2024
Digitally signed
by PRABHDEEP
PRABHDEEP KAUR
KAUR Date: 2024.08.17
17:28:27 +0530
No. F. 27 (20) /94/Vig at page 47/N wherein it is mentioned at point. 1
"1. It is not clear, how the name of Sh. Chidda Singh and Aluck A. E, are
included in the case, as names are in notes at P-13-17N do not tally about
them.".
Further, in reply to the RTI application of the plaintiff, DDA has
clearly, answered vide reply dated 15.05.2015 that: 1. Whether the name
of applicant Chidda (plaintiff herein) was involved in file of OSB in
which the fraud was happened. 2. Whether the name of applicant Chidda
(plaintiff herein) was there /figured in preliminary investigation done in
File No. F.27 (20) 94/Vig at page 13 to 17 /Note? 3. Whether the name of
applicant Chidda (plaintiff herein) was in noting at page 18 to 19 /Note of
File No. F.27(20) 94/Vig submitted by Sh. S.N. Gupta to V.C. D.D.A. for
approval to mention the name in complaint to be submitted to SHO PS
Kotla Mubarakpur through senior most officer of D.D.A. 4. Whether the
copy of FIR No. 102/94 registered by P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur obtained
personally by S.N. Gupta the then D.V.O.IV? The above said questions
were replied by Dy. Director (Vig) II (Budh Ram) of DDA, vide its reply
dated 11.05.15.
Answer of question no. 1 to 3 was "No" and answer to question no. 4
was "not known. At page 19/n, Sh. S.N. Gupta has written that FIR no.
102/94 registered by the police station Kotla Mubarakpur and copy
obtained personally"
Thus, it is clear that defendant acted malafidely against the
plaintiff since beginning and he caused damage to reputation, dignity and
respect of plaintiff and plaintiff is entitled for damages for Rs. 20 lacs.
CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 5/23
Dated 17.08.2024
Digitally signed
PRABHDEEP by PRABHDEEP
KAUR
KAUR Date: 2024.08.17
17:28:33 +0530
Further, plaintiff filed a criminal complaint U/s 200 of Cr.P.C for
prosecuting the defendant for his commission of offences punishable u/s
167, 177,182,195,420, 406,467,468,471,506 IPC. However, the said
complaint was dismissed vide order dated 20/09/2017 on the technical
ground, however, the Hon'ble Court while dismissing the said complaint
also observed that complainant was maliciously prosecuted by accused
Sh S.N. Gupta for which he may be liable to pay damages and
complainant ( plaintiff) has every right to approach an appropriate court
of law to seek damages for the tort alleged by him in the said complaint,
if advised so.
Thereafter, on 04.01.2018, plaintiff filed a civil suit for damages,
however, the said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff on 08/02/2018 due
to technical reason with liberty to file fresh suit after compliance of
statutory provision.
Thereafter, plaintiff issued notice dated 21/07/2018 U/s 80 of Code
Of Civil Procedure, to the defendant which was sent on 23/07/2018 by
speed post at two last known addresses of defendant i.e. permanent
address and at his parental office. The postal envelops from both the
address were returned and were received back by the plaintiff. Thereafter,
plaintiff got to know about two more addresses of defendant and the
same legal notice U/S 80 of CPC was sent to defendant but the same got
returned unserved. The defendant is intentionally avoiding the service of
notice as he has been served summons of Criminal Revision at his
address i.e H.No.A-4/15, FF, Paschim Vihar, West Delhi, Delhi, as shown
CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 6/23
Dated 17.08.2024
Digitally signed
by PRABHDEEP
PRABHDEEP KAUR
KAUR Date: 2024.08.17
17:28:40 +0530
from the Report of Process Server on the summons of said court and he
made appearance in said case on the basis of said service and still
appearing in said case.
(3) Summons were issued to the defendant and defendant was served
with summons of the suit on 27.07.2019. However, defendant neither
appeared nor filed written statement within the stipulated period. Hence,
the right of the defendant to file WS was closed vide order dated
28.11.2019. Thereafter, matter was listed for ex-parte plaintiff's evidence.
(4) In ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-
1.He has reiterated the facts of plaint in his affidavit Ex.PW1/1. He has relied upon the documents i.e:
I. The photocopies of Election Card, Aadhar Card, Identity Card and Pensioners Identity Card are exhibited as EX.PW-1/A(Colly.) (5 pages) (OSR);
II. Original reply dated 23.04.2015 of RTI application alongwith copy of Electoral Roll of 2016 of Assembly Constituency, 15 Shakurpur Basti, Delhi showing one address of defendant of the Paschim Vihar are exhibited as EX.PW-1/B(Colly.) (3 Pages);
III.Attested copy of Inquiry Report dated 23.03.1994 alongwith its fair English Typed copy re exhibited as EX.PW-1/C (Colly.-29 Pages);
IV. Attested copy of complaint dated 24.03.1994 given by CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 7/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:28:47 +0530 the defendant to the SHO PS Mubarakpur, New Delhi alongwith fair English Typed copy are exhibited as EX.PW-1/D (Colly. - 4 Pages);
V. Certified copy of FIR No.102/94 U/s 420/120-B IPC alongwith fair English Typed copy are exhibited as EX.PW- 1/E(Colly.-7 Pages);
VI. Certified copy of the judgment dated 15.10.2011 passed by the Hon'ble MM-08(South) Ms. Chetna Singh, Saket court is exhibited as EX.PW-1/F (35 Pages); VII. Certified copy of official noting received under RTI with regard to the approval dated 24.03.1994 of said Inquiry Report from higher officers of DDA including finance member (FM) and Dy. Chief Legal Advisor of DDA alongwith fair typed copy are exhibited as EX.PW- 1/G(Colly.-6 Pages);
VIII. Certified copy of final approval from Vice Chariman, DDA alongwith fair typed English copy are exhibited as "EX.PW-1/H(Colly. -2 Pages);
IX. The certified copies of observation of Finance Member (FM) of DDA made on 28.01.1995 alongwith its fair typed English copy are exhibited as EX.PW-1/I (Colly. -2 Pages);
X. Attested copy of RTI application dated 15.04.2015 alongwith original reply dated 11.05.2015 from Dy. Director (Vig) II (Budh Ram) of DDA are exhibited as CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 8/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.08.17 17:28:54 +0530 EX.PW-1/J(Colly.-5 Pages);
XI. Certified copy of complaint and the dismissal of order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Ld. MM-07 (SE) Saket, Delhi are exhibited as EX.PW- 1/K (Colly.-36 pages);
XII. Certified copies of order dated 04.01.2018, 18.01.2018 and 08.02.2018, passed in said Civil Suit No.CS No.19/18 are exhibited as EX.PW-1/L (Colly.-5 Pages);
XIII. The office copy of Legal Notice dated 21.07.2018 alongwith original two Speed Post Receipts and the Photocopies of two envelop cover received as returned containing the above legal notice alongwith are exhibited as EX.PW-1/M (Colly.-17 Pages);
XIV. The office copy of Legal Notice dated 27.08.2018 alongwith original two Speed Post Receipts and the Photocopies of two envelop cover received as returned containing the above legal notice alongwith are exhibited as EX.PW-1/N (Colly.-17 Pages).
(5) Plaintiff examined Sh. Manoj Kumar Shekhar as PW-2. He deposed that he is a summoned witness and has brought the summoned record i.e. F.27(20)94-Vig. from the office of DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. I have brought the originals of documents i.e. CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 9/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:29:02 +0530 i. Copy of Inquiry Report dated 23.03.1994 which is already EX.PW-1/C (colly.) (OSR), ii. Copy of complaint dated 24.03.1994 given by the defendant to SHO PS Mubarakpur, New Delhi already Ex. PW1/D (OSR) iii. Copy of FIR No.102/94 U/s 420/120-B IPC alongwith are exhibited as EX.PW- 1/E (OSR)(Colly), iv. Copy of the judgment dated 15.10.2011 passed by the Hon'ble MM-08(South) Ms. Chetna Singh, Saket court is already exhibited as EX.PW-1/F (35 Pages);
v. Copy of official noting received under RTI with regard to the approval dated 24.03.1994 of said Inquiry Report from higher officers of DDA including finance member (FM) and Dy. Chief Legal Advisor of DDA alongwith fair typed copy are exhibited as EX.PW-1/G(Colly) (OSR);
vi. Copy of final approval from Vice Chairman, DDA alongwith fair typed English copy are exhibited as "EX.PW- 1/H (Colly) (OSR);
vii. The copy of observation of Finance Member (FM) DDA made on 28.01.1995 are exhibited as EX.PW-1/I (OSR), viii. Copy of RTI application dated 15.04.2015 alongwith original reply dated 11.05.2015 from Dy. Director (Vig) II (Budh Ram) of DDA are exhibited as EX.PW-1/J(Colly) (OSR).
Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed and matter was posted for ex-parte final arguments.
CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 10/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:29:08 +0530
(6) I have heard arguments from Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.
(7) The plaintiff has filed present suit for damages alongwith interest and cost on the ground that he was maliciously prosecuted by defendant. The brief facts are that the plaintiff was working in DDA and in the year 1994 a departmental inquiry was conducted with respect to illegal allotment of a plot and and CVO/Chief Vigilance Officer, DDA submitted the report on 23.03.1994 and said report was forwarded to Director Vigilance, DDA who further forwarded the same to Deputy Director, Vigilance DDA/defendant and defendant lodged a written complaint dated 24.03.1994 to SHO PS K.M. Pur, while acting upon the recommendation to take action against the officials mentioned in the report. As per plaintiff, defendant, with malice and malafide intentions, gave his name in the written complaint despite the fact that his name was not mentioned in the report of said CVO and thereafter, FIR was lodged against plaintiff in which he was arrested and a later on bailed out and was finally acquitted on 15.10.2011.
(8) Plaintiff has entered into witness box and reiterated the averments made in the plaint and he has also proved the inquiry report dated 23.03.1994 Ex. PW-1/C to prove that his name was not mentioned in the original inquiry report dated 23.03.1994. He further proved the complaint dated 24.03.1994 (Ex. PW-1/D) given by defendant to police to prove that defendant had given his name to police without any ground and with CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 11/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:29:14 +0530 dishonest, malicious and malafide intention. Plaintiff has also proved the acquittal judgment dated 15.10.2011 Ex. PW-1/F. Plaintiff has further proved the official noting regarding approval dated 24.03.1994 Ex. PW- 1/G to prove that his name was not mentioned in the noting and he further proved the final noting dated 24.03.1994 to prove that defendant lodged false FIR against plaintiff and obtained the copy personally, defying the procedure and rules. He further proved the observations of finance members of DDA Ex. PW-1/i to prove that there was nothing in the report as to how the name of plaintiff was included in the FIR when the original note don't talk about them. Plaintiff has also proved RTI rely Ex. PW-1/J to prove that his name was not involved in the file of OSB in which fraud happened nor his name was there in the preliminary investigation report nor his name was in the noting submitted by defendant to VC, DDA for approval before lodging complaint to concerned police station.
(9) Further, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has read over the judgment of Ld. Trial Court and has also read over the plaint and has also pointed out towards the documents Ex. PW-1/A to Ex. PW-1/J to prove that defendant has prosecuted the plaintiff with malafide intention and has caused damages to plaintiff who had to save the prosecution for 17.5 years. It has been further argued that plaintiff filed complaint u/S 200 Cr. PC in which Ld. Judge while dismissing the complaint vide order dated 20.09.2017 observed that plaintiff is liable for damages as he was maliciously prosecuted by defendant. It has been further argued that CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 12/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed PRABHDEEP by PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:29:20 +0530 thereafter plaintiff filed a civil suit for damages on 04.01.2018 but the same was withdrawn on 08.02.2018 due to technical defect and liberty was granted to the plaintiff to file fresh suit. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the present suit on 16.11.2018 which is well within period of limitation.
(10) In an action for malicious prosecution, plaintiff must prove:
1. That he was prosecuted by the defendant.
2. That the proceedings complained of terminated in favour of the plaintiff if from their nature they were capable of so terminating.
3. That the prosecution was instituted against him without any reasonable or probable cause.
4. That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of carrying the law into effect, but with an intention which was wrongful in point of fact.
5. That he has suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to the security of his property.
(11) In the case of Bank of India v. Lakshimani Dass & Ors, case no. AIR 2000 SC 1172, decided on 10.03.2000 he court reiterated Indian position that in malice absence of probable and reasonable cause must be proved. The proceedings complained of by the plaintiff must be initiated in malicious spirit that is from an indirect and improper motive and not in furtherance of justice.
(12) Instigating a prosecution is to be distinguished from the act of CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 13/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:29:26 +0530
merely giving information, on the strength of which a prosecution is commenced by someone else in the exercise of his own discretion.
If a complainant does not go beyond giving what he believes to be correct information to the police, and the police, without further interference on his part (except giving such honest assistance as they may require), think fit to prosecute, it would be improper to make him responsible in damages for the failure of the prosecution. But, if the charge is false to the knowledge of the complainant, if he misleads the police by bringing suborned witnesses to support it, if he influences the police to assist him in sending an innocent man for trial before the Magistrate, it would be equally improper to allow him to escape liability because the prosecution has not, technically, been conducted by him. The question in all cases of this kind must be: Who was the prosecutor? And the answer must depend upon all the circumstances of the case. "as held in Gaya Prasad Tewari v. Bhagat Singh, (1908) ILR 30 ALL 525(PC)".
Thus, mere setting of the law in motion is not the criteria, the conduct of complainant, before and after making the charge, must also be taken into consideration.
(13) In the case of S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews & Ors., Civil case No. 6637-6638 of 2018 decided on 14.09.2018 an ISRO scientist was alleged for espionage of ISRO secrets. The matter was fisrt investigated by the Kerela Police, where they found the allegations to be true. Later the matter was transferred to CBI. According to CBI Report, CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 14/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed PRABHDEEP by PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:30:38 +0530 the allegations of espionage not proved and found to be false. The entire prosecution initiated by the Kerala State Police was malicious and caused tremendous harassment and immeasurable anguish to the appellant. The harassment and mental torture faced by the appellant was considered as the violation of Article 21 of the appellant. The appellant contended that:
1. The CBI report highlighted several omissions and commissions on part of Kerala Police officers while investigating the case against the appellant.
2. The prosecution was malicious as it had a catastrophic effect on appellant's service career hampering his career, life span, savings, honour, academic work and self-esteem, leading to total devastation of peace. It also caused irreparable and irremediable loss and setback caused to technological advancements in Space Research in India.
In this case, it was observed that the main objective of police force is to investigate crimes, to prosecute before court, to prevent commission of crime and to ensure law & order to protect citizen's life and property. It has immense powers and therefore, the amplitude of this power casts obligation on police and it must bear in mind that if a person is arrested for crime, his fundamental rights must not be violated. The court had directed the State to pay compensation of Rs, 50 lakhs to appellant within 8 weeks.
(14) In the present case, plaintiff has averred that his name was not CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 15/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:30:31 +0530 mentioned in the initial inquiry and defendant with malafide and dishonest intention entered the name of plaintiff in the complaint given to police and after facing trial for 17 and ½ years, plaintiff was finally acquitted by the Court on 15.10.2011. It is settled principle that malice is not to the inferred merely from the acquittal of the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove independently of acquittal that his prosecution was malicious and without reasonable and probable cause. However, in the present case apart from bald averments of the plaintiff, plaintiff could not bring on record anything to prove as to why defendant would prosecute the plaintiff with malicious intention. The plaintiff has not proved any motive or purpose on part of defendant to prosecute the plaintiff falsely or malafidely nor plaintiff has disclosed any previous enmity or tussle between plaintiff and defendant due to which defendant would drag the plaintiff in a false case.
(15) The plaintiff has relied upon the judgment dated 15.10.2011 passed by Ld. MM i.e. Ex. PW-1/F wherein plaintiff was acquitted. Perusal of the judgment Ex. PW-1/F shows that defendant was examined as PW-2 in the State case and he deposed during his cross examination that :
".....The said witness further stated that he had included the names of accused Chhida Singh and Sumer Singh in report Ex. PW-2/A not only on the basis of report Mark B but also on the basis of original files bearing number L7 (N36) 81 and file number L7 (1161) 81. The files are on record, however, the relevant noting from page A-1 to A-11 of fie number L-7 (1161)/81 are not on record......
CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 16/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:30:24 +0530
......He admitted the suggestion that the record on the basis of which the Chief Vigilance Officer got the enquiry conducted and made his report was not forwarded to the IO. He further admitted the suggestion that he had not forwarded work distribution register of the branch and diary dispatch register of the branch, disposal register of the concerned assistant and central diary register of the DDA to the IO......."
(16) Further, during appreciation of evidence, Ld. MM observed, while appreciating the testimony of defendant as PW-2 in the said case, that:
"........The complaint was filed by PW-2 Sh. S.N. Gupta, which is Ex.PW2/A and during investigation, IO seized two files in original from the said witness and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B.......He further deposed that his complaint dated 24.03.1994 was made to the SHO on the directions of senior officers, who prepared a report on the basis of preliminary investigation when he was posted as Deputy Director, Vigilance in the Vigilance Department of DDA, Vikas Sadan. On the basis of his complaint, PW-1 registered the FIR which is Ex.PW1/A ..........He further stated that he did not conduct any investigation/enquiry in the case personally as the Vice Chairman, DDA, had ordered for filing the FIR in the present case.....
Thus, from the perusal of testimony of defendant in the said case, it is clear that defendant admitted that he had not done any personal inquiry in the matter. Now the plaintiff has relied upon the cross CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 17/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:30:17 +0530 examination of defendant (as PW-2) in the State matter. However, from his cross examination, it is clear that witness has nowhere admitted that he added the name of plaintiff on his own rather he reiterated that he included the name of plaintiff on the basis of report mark-B and also on the basis of noting on the original file. Though the original files were not made the part of police file but that cannot be a fault of defendant and negligence or lack on part of investigating officer cannot be attributed to the defendant. Moreover, plaintiff had not even cross examined the defendant in the State case nor plaintiff had given any suggestion to the defendant (who appeared as PW-2 in State case) that he included the name of plaintiff due to malafide intention. Plaintiff has completely failed to give any reason as to why defendant would falsely implicate plaintiff in a false case, out of blue without any reason and rhymes.
(17) Further, in the judgment Ex. PW-1/F Ld. MM has observed that :
"....... He further stated that he did not conduct any investigation/inquiry in the case personally and the Vice Chairman, DDA, had ordered for filing the FIR in this case. He further stated that the said file containing the noting of the Vice Chairman was not on record. The photocopy of the order of Vice Chairman is on record which is Mark A. He further stated that the original noting/orders of the VC marked by him to the CVO which was further marked to him by the then CVO were not on record.......He admitted the suggestion that he had merely forwarded the report Ex. PW-2/A for registration of property FIR....."
In the case of Ravinder Kumar Sinha v. State of Assam, Case No. CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 18/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:30:10 +0530 89 of 1984, decided on 22.05.1990 the Supreme Court addressed the question that can a police official be held guilty for launching malicious prosecution when prosecution failed. The court held that where prosecution was launched by police under instructions from State Government, even though such prosecution failed ultimately it cannot be said to be malicious or without reasonable or probable cause and thus nor a violation of human rights can be claimed in such a case.
Therefore, in the present case merely because defendant had made the complaint to the police and the investigating officer /police failed to do proper investigation due to which prosecution failed, it cannot be said that defendant lodged malicious prosecution against the plaintiff.
(18) Further, from the perusal of judgment Ex. PW-1/F, it is clear that in the State case the investing officer was examined as PW-10 and during cross examination by the plaintiff herein witness stated that:
"......The said witness was also cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel of accused Chhida Singh, Om Prakash and O.P. Verma, wherein he stated that accused Chhida Singh was arrested on 24.03.1994. He further stated that he did not remember if officials from DDA were also present at that time. He admitted the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that the name of Chhida Singh is not on record, however, his name was mentioned in the complaint. He further stated that he found sufficient evidence against the accused Chidda Singh during the investigation"CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 19/23
Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed PRABHDEEP by PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:30:03 +0530 (19) Further, in the judgment Ex. PW-1/F, Ld. MM has observed while appreciating the evidence of IO that:
"....... Next witness examined by the prosecution is the PW-10 IO/Inspector Virender Kumar, who in his chief admitted that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Sudhir Sareen, Vijender Singh and Chhida Singh and the same are Ex. PW5/A, B and C. He further submitted in his cross- examination that no seizure memo was prepared despite him having admitted seizing the vigilance report on the day of registration of FIR from complainant S.N. Gupta. He further deposed that he did not interrogate from the officials of accounts department of DDA or MCD. He further admitted that his investigation was based exactly on the vigilance report. He deposed that he is not aware of the documents submitted by the accused persons during the course of said enquiry. This witness also admitted that he did not conduct any investigation to test the veracity of vigilance report. He further admitted that he believed the report of enquiry officers to be the truth and hence, acted according to them and due to this reason, he did not interrogate any other officials and did not go through the details of the procedure or seized other material pertaining to accused Vijender Singh, Henrieta Lakra and Sumer Singh. This witness was further cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sudhir Kumar Sareen and he admitted the suggestion that the name of accused Sudhir Kumar Sareen was neither mentioned in the complaint of DDA, enquiry report of DDA or in the FIR of this case. He further deposed that nothing was recovered from the accused Sudhir Kumar Sareen. He further admitted that there is nothing CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 20/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.08.17 17:29:57 +0530 on record which could connect accused Sudhir Sareen which alleged commission of offence except disclosure statement of the accused.
Thus, a detailed perusal of the cross-examination of this witness clearly reveal that the IO had merely filed the charge-sheet on the basis of the vigilance enquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Officers. No independent investigation was conducted by the IO in the present matter.
It is clearly a case of shoddy investigation by the IO and as is evident from the deposition of the remaining witnesses, the essential ingredients of section 420 IPC have not been fulfilled and hence, benefit of doubt has to be granted to all the accused persons and they are accordingly, acquitted for the charge framed against him...."
Thus, clearly it is the case where plaintiff was acquitted due to lack on part of investigating authority but nothing had come on record to show or prove that while making complaint, defendant had acted malafidely.
(20) Further, perusal of noting mentioned in the document Ex. PW-1/G shows that it was recorded in the file on 28.01.1995 that "it is not clear as to how names of Chhida Singh and Auluck, AE are included in the case when the note at page no. 13 -17/N don't talk about them". Perusal of this file shows that Auluck, AE made a representation to DDA, however, plaintiff had never made any representation to DDA that his name has been impleaded due to collusion or malafide intentions on part of defendant. Surprisingly, the prosecution against plaintiff commenced in CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 21/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:29:51 +0530 the year 1994 and plaintiff got acquitted on 15.10.2011 and still plaintiff kept mum till 2015 when for the first time plaintiff filed a complaint u/S 200 Cr. PC against the defendant. It seems that plaintiff is only trying to take benefits of lapse on part of investigating authority as even during trial of State case plaintiff had not come-forward with the contention that he was prosecuted maliciously by the defendant. Moreover, defendant had only made the complaint to the police and he had done so under the instructions of his superior authority and for the same defendant cannot be personally liable. Atmost it is the collective responsibility of the department of DDA which can be held responsible for the wrongful act, if any, committed against the plaintiff but plaintiff has not impleaded the State or DDA as a party in the present case, therefore, no order can be passed against them.
(21) As per Article 74 of the Schedule attached to Limitation Act 1963, the period of limitation for damages/compensation for a malicious prosecution is one year and the time from which period begin to run is from the date when plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated.
In the present matter, admittedly plaintiff was acquitted vide judgment dated 15.10.2011 and plaintiff filed the present suit on 16.11.2018 i.e. after seven years from the date when plaintiff was acquitted. Further, even the complaint u/S 200 Cr. PC was filed by the plaintiff on 25.06.2015 i.e. after elapse of more than 3 and ½ years from the date of judgment of acquittal. Further, even the previous civil suit for CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 22/23 Dated 17.08.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:29:43 +0530 damages was filed by the plaintiff on 03.01.2018 i.e. after elapse of more than 6 and ½ years from the judgment of acquittal. Thus, clearly the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred and there is nothing on record which can extend the period of limitation for the plaintiff.
(22) In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits and being time barred. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All the pending interim applications stand dismissed being not pressed upon.
File be cosigned to record room after due compliance.Digitally signed PRABHDEEP by PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.17 17:29:35 +0530 Typed to the direct dictation and (Prabh Deep Kaur) announced in the open court DJ-05, South East on this 17th August 2024 Saket Courts, New Delhi CS DJ No. 1672/18 Chhida Singh Vs. S.N. Gupta Page No. 23/23 Dated 17.08.2024