Delhi District Court
S.P. Tanti vs Union Of India And Ans on 27 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-06,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ 59/19
CNR No. DLST010006402019
S.P. Tanti
S/o Late Sh. Dip Narayan Tanti
C/o Naveen Tanti
House No. A-246/9, Devli Extension,
Opposite Amar Singh Market,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi 110 080 .....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Finance Secretary
Ministry of Finance,
Raj Path Marg,
E-Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi.
2. Central Bureau of Investigation
Through Director,
CGO Complex, Block No. 3,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003. .....DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 25.01.2019
Date of conclusion of Arguments : 22.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 27.04.2026
CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 1 of 25
S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,99,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT
OF DAMAGES AND DEFAMATION FOR MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,99,00,000/- as damages, loss of reputation and economies.
2. The plaintiff had also filed an application under Order XXXIII Rule 2 and 3 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking permission to sue as an indigent person by exempting him from filing court fees. A report from SDM was called regarding the properties, assets, cash and bank balance of the plaintiff and after hearing arguments and considering the report, the said application of the plaintiff was allowed vide order dated 02.08.2024.
3. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is that he had applied for the post of public prosecutor in Central Bureau of Investigation (defendant no. 2) under the direct recruitment quota against the post reserved for scheduled caste category. The plaintiff was recommended by Union Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of Public Prosecutor on 28.11.1995. The plaintiff in support of his caste, submitted caste certificate no.216 dated 25.02.1992 issued by the then competent authority of Anumandal Padadhikari Office, Sadar Bhagalpur, Bihar belongs CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 2 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
to "Pan" Community. After verification of such caste certificate, on 09.12.1996 appointment letter was issued by the then appointing authority of Central Bureau of investigation C.G.O Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. The plaintiff joined in service on 20.12.1996 as Public Prosecutor on gazetted post having with immaculate and spotless reputation in career.
4. It is averred that after completion of two year probation period in service, maliciously an FIR No. 45/99 was registered at Police station Lodhi Colony U/s 420/468/471 IPC against the plaintiff by the then Sh. Tarsem Chand, Administrative Officer (ESTT.) CBI on behalf of the Union of India with misusing the official position being a public servant on 20.01.1999. The Government of India does not provide any right to any public servant for misusing official position in discharge of official duty at large.
5. It is further averred that the plaintiff contested the alleged allegation of fake and forged caste certificate no. 216 dated 25.02.1992. Charge U/s 468 IPC could not be framed by the trial court due to insufficient evidence found in record against the plaintiff during framing of charge on 10.08.2004 but charges U/s 420/471 IPC was framed. The evidence of prosecution witnesses recorded during completion of trial and judgment of acquittal delivered in open court on 01.02.2018.
CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 3 of 25S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
6. It is further averred that on 15.04.2002 suddenly service of the plaintiff terminated without order of competent authority being group A category employee on the post of Public Prosecutor in Central Bureau of investigation. The plaintiff became unemployed and faced hardship of life, even "General Provident Fund" amounts was not withdrawn and same was pending before the department of Central Bureau of Investigation office.
7. It is further averred that after the registration of FIR No. 45/99 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC at Police Station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi-110003, concerning an alleged fake and forged caste certificate bearing No. 216 dated 25.02.1992, the same was published in a renowned newspaper against the plaintiff with the intent to defame, humiliate, and bring disrepute to the plaintiff in the locality and society at large, causing irreparable harm which cannot be compensated at any cost. Due to the publication of false, frivolous and baseless news without any piece of evidence, maliciously registered false case caused irreparable loss to prestige, personality and property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered mental agonies, torture and fear of life. The life of children become spoiled due to illegal termination from service of the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 4 of 25S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
8. It is further averred that, due to the malicious prosecution, the reputation of the plaintiff as well as that of his family has been severely damaged. The same also caused the death of the plaintiff's parent. The credibility built by the plaintiff over a span of time was shattered due to the lodging of a frivolous, fictitious, and concocted FIR against him. The defendant no. 2 had also extended threats for dire consequences to the plaintiff. The defamatory acts on the part of the defendants had the tendency to injure the reputation of the plaintiff, to bring him into obloquy, contempt, and ridicule, and also adversely affected his service.
9. It is further averred that the plaintiff was presented on baseless criminal charges up to 19 years due to tortuous acts of the informant or defendant no.2 and same was ended in favour of the plaintiff, this was malicious action without reasonable and probably cause, on behalf of defendant with ulterior motive to cause wrongful loss of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed general and special damages on account of mental torture, agony, financial loss and injuries inflicted to his reputation, honour as well and the detail of the same are mentioned as under:-
(A) GENERAL DAMAGES:-
(i) Injury/loss to reputation of the plaintiff being gazetted post of service in group-A category.
= Rs. 1,00,00,000.00 (1 Crore) CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 5 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
(ii) Mental torture and physical agony for the period of about 19 years = Rs.50,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only)
(iii) Loss of family honour = Rs.40, 00,000 (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) (B) Legal Assistances
(i) Legal assistance and General = Rs.9,00,000.00/-(Nine Lakhs) GRAND TOTAL 1,99,00,000.00 (1 CRORE 99 LAKHS)
10. It is further averred that the plaintiff sent legal notices dated 26.09.2018 and 14.09.2018 from the Regd. Post to the defendant for the payment of the damages and compensation to the tune of Rs.1,99,00,000.00/- (One Crore Ninety Nine Lakhs Only) but nothing happened. Hence the present suit.
11. Summons of suit were served on the defendant who filed the written statement wherein preliminary objections were taken that plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands; suit is not properly valued for want of proper and adequate court fees; the suit has been filed with the sole intention to mislead this Court, to cause damage to the reputation of the defendants and to extort money from the defendants and that the alleged claims are CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 6 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
unreliable, inadmissible in evidence and cannot be considered by this Court. It is contended that after verification of the certificate of plaintiff, the District Magistrate Bhagalpur had informed in writing that plaintiff belonged to OBC and on the basis of verification report plaintiff was offered the post of Public Prosecutor against the vacancy reserved for OBC category after the approval of the Competent Authority vide offer of appointment letter dated 09.12.1996. Plaintiff joined CBI w.e.f. 20.12.1996 at CBI, ACB, Mumbai.
12. It is further contended that the district Magistrate, Bhagalpur vide letter dated 10.12.1998 had reported that as per reports of Annumandal Padadhikari, Sadar, Bhagalpur on 21.11.1994 no certificate in the name of plaintiff was issued from that office. The signatures of the issuing authority available on the certificate was also doubtful as it did not tally with the signatures of the then Anumandal Padadhikari and as such the caste certificate submitted by plaintiff was not genuine.
13. It is further contended that with the approval of Competent Authority, a letter dated 20.01.1999 was sent to SHO P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi for action as per law whereupon an FIR No. 45/1999 dated 20.01.1999 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC was registered at P.S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi against the plaintiff. The services of plaintiff as Public Prosecutor, CBI was also terminated on 15.04.2002 on the recommendation of DPC as CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 7 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
his work and performance during the probation period was not found satisfactory.
14. It is further contended that the plaintiff conveniently concealed that against the termination order dated 15.04.2002, he had filed an OA no. 902/2003 before Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi requesting to quash the impugned order dated 15.04.2002. The Hon'ble CAT vide order dated 28.04.2004 allowed the OA and directed the respondent to reinstate the plaintiff in service within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, CBI filed a writ petition no. 12998/2004 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein vide judgment dated 31.05.2007, Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition and the order of termination of plaintiff stood restored.
15. It is further contended that plaintiff has deliberately concealed the fact that his termination has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. The plaintiff has raised an alleged bolstered up claim against the defendants without any substantial proof having been placed on record to show actual loss of any reputation or goodwill or harassment caused to the plaintiff at the hands of defendants. The claim as alleged herein is imaginary and fictitious and without any basis or proof worth mentioning.
CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 8 of 25S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
16. Replication to the written statement was filed on behalf of plaintiff wherein the contentions raised in the written statement were controverted and the averments made in the plaint were reiterated.
17. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2025:-
1. Whether the present suit is not properly valued and proper Court fees has not been affixed? OPD.
2. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties?
OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,99,00,000/- (Rupees one crore Ninety Nine Lacs) against the defendants on account of damages and loss of reputation, as prayed for? OPP.
4. Relief.
18. In support of his case, plaintiff has himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:-
(1) Certified copy of judgment dated 01.02.2018 passed in case pertaining to FIR no. 45/1999, P.S. Lodhi Colony, State vs. Shankar Prasad as Ex.PW1/2;CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 9 of 25
S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
(2) Copy of Legal Notice dated 26.09.2018 as Ex.PW1/3;
(3) Postal receipt as Ex.PW1/4;
(4) Postal Tracking Report as Ex.PW1/5;
(5) Office copy of Legal Notice dated 14.09.2018 as
Ex.PW1/6;
(6) Postal receipt as Ex.PW1/7;
(7) Postal Tracking Report as Ex.PW1/8;
(8) Copy of Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/9 (OSR);
(9) Copy of gazette of India regarding Delhi High Court
(Amendment) Act 2015 in connection with
enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi Distt Court upto Rs. 2 Crore as Ex.PW1/10;
(10) Certificate under Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhinyam 2023 as Ex.PW1/11.
19. Plaintiff/PW1 was cross examined and discharged. Thereafter, plaintiff has closed his evidence on 30.07.2025.
20. Thereafter, the matter was listed for DE. However, no DE was led by defendant and vide order dated 16.12.2025, the defence evidence stood closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 10 of 25S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
21. I have heard arguments and have carefully gone through record of case as well as written arguments filed on behalf of parties. My issue-wise findings are as under.
ISSUE NO. 1Whether the present suit is not properly valued and proper Court fees has not been affixed? OPD.
22. Onus to prove this issue was upon defendant as in its written statement, defendants have taken the plea that plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fees in the present suit. Record reveals that, vide order dated 02.08.2024, this Court allowed plaintiff to sue as indigent person u/o XXXIII CPC. Thus, valuation and court fee aspect was already looked into by this Court. Further, onus of above issue was on defendant but no evidence brought on record by defendant nor addressed arguments to show that the present suit is undervalued and deficit court fees has been paid. In view thereof, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties?OPD.
23. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. But the defendants have not lead any evidence nor addressed arguments to show that on what basis the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, due to lack of evidence this issue is decided against the defendants.
CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 11 of 25S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
ISSUE NO. 3Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,99,00,000/- (Rupees one crore Ninety Nine Lacs) against the defendants on account of damages and loss of reputation, as prayed for? OPP.
24. The burden of proving this issue was upon plaintiff. In order to prove his case to this effect, the plaintiff placed reliance upon his testimony and the documents Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/11.
25. It is argued by plaintiff that he is entitled for compensation due to malicious act or tortious act committed by complainant Dr. Tarsem Chand of CBI without obtaining the expert opinion in reference of alleged caste certificate dated 21.11.1994 from handwriting expert of Central Government or State Government; plaintiff suffered 19 years under the wheel of justice and everything lost i.e. reputation, monetary loss as well as suffered mental and physical injury and pain. He further argued that it is mandatory to seek an explanation from the employee before lodging a criminal case against him, which was not done by Defendant No. 2 in the present case, hence, the defendant is liable to pay compensatory damages. He also contended that if a person knowingly lodges a false complaint with the police, naming the plaintiff as the accused, and supports the same with false evidence before the police as well as in court, such person would be deemed to be the prosecutor in a suit for malicious prosecution, even if the court takes cognizance of the case on a CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 12 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
police challan, as held in Balbhaddar v. Badrisah, AIR 1926 PC
46.
26. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff is not entitled to decree for recovery of any amount on account of damages and loss of reputation for want of any document in support of claim, and that in absence of any supporting document alleged claims are unreliable, inadmissible in evidence and cannot be considered by this Court. It is further argued that the plaintiff has neither annexed any documents with the plaint nor exhibited any documents during his testimony, and that, in the absence of any evidence of publication, no claim for defamation can be sustained against any person.
27. The present suit has been instituted by plaintiff for recovery on account of damages and defamation for malicious prosecution. In order to succeed in a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution, the following conditions must be fulfilled:
(i) that criminal proceedings must have been instituted by the defendant;
(ii) that in doing so the defendant had acted without any reasonable and probable cause;CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 13 of 25
S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
(iii) that the defendant acted maliciously;
(iv) that the criminal proceedings terminated in favour of plaintiff i.e. in his acquittal or discharge and the defendant was unsuccessful.
28. A bare perusal of the judgment passed in case FIR No. 45/1999, P.S. Lodhi Colony, State vs. Shankar Prasad Tanti shows that condition no. 1 and 4 are fulfilled. However, plaintiff has failed to either plead or prove the malice on the part of defendant in prosecution of aforesaid case. As per rules of pleadings, the plaintiff was required to give detailed particulars of the alleged malice on the part of defendant in prosecution of criminal case in the plaint and the said particulars should have been proved by the plaintiff by leading reliable evidence. However, in my considered opinion, a bare perusal of plaint shows that entire plaint is conspicuously silent about alleged malice on the part of defendant in prosecution of the aforesaid case.
29. On a bare perusal of judgment passed by Ld. M.M-01, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi further shows that the defendant cannot be said to be acting without any reasonable or probable cause in as much as it has been recorded by Ld. MM that the present FIR was registered by complainant / PW1 on the basis of report of District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, Bihar which was sent vide letter dated 10.12.1998. However, plaintiff was CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 14 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
acquitted as no evidence was produced by the prosecution by which it may be established that accused had cheated the public authorities by producing fake scheduled caste certificate for obtaining the service as public prosecutor in CBI. However, it does not mean that in filing the complaint, the defendant had acted without any reasonable or probable cause.
30. Thus, in my considered opinion, in the absence of detailed particulars as to the malice on the part of defendant in his criminal case, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for claim of damage on account of malice prosecution.
31. The averment of the plaintiff that the said criminal prosecution was a malicious prosecution has to be viewed in the light of the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts in various judgments. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in its judgment "Tarwinder Kumar Bedi v. Jit Parkash (2014 SCC Online P&H 20259), the Court has held that :
"6. In order to succeed in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, plaintiff has to prove:-
(a) that the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant;
(b) that the prosecution ended in favour of plaintiff;CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 15 of 25
S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
(c) that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause;
(d) that the defendant was actuated by malice."
Further, the Hon'ble High Court in para no. 9 of its judgment has observed as follows:-
"....The onus to prove that the proceedings were initiated without any reasonable cause is always on the person who asserts in affirmative i.e. the plaintiff in the present case who seeks damages on account of alleged false accusation. The conditions precedent for filing the suit for malicious prosecutions are the aforesaid conditions which should coexist before the defendant in a suit for malicious prosecution can be burdened with liability. No doubt it is true that the acquittal of a person in a criminal case sometimes gives presumption that there was no reasonable cause for his prosecution, but this presumption is rebuttable in nature and there cannot be any universally accepted phenomenon that in case prosecution fails then the accused would be entitled for damages. Otherwise in all those cases where prosecution fails, would give rise to damages in favour of the accused. In view of this, it would be more in consonance with justice and equity to weigh the lodging of accusation on the threshold of principles as enumerated above. The question which has been posed for consideration before the court is whether the prosecution lodged against the person before a criminal court of law, if found having been instituted falsely or maliciously can lay the foundation for filing suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The proposition has been seen in the context of complicity whether simply, setting the criminal law in motion on account of presentation of complaint (whether the same is found CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 16 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
false subsequently) gives arise to any cause of action. If the action is dismissed by the court in the very inception as the same does not disclose any complicity, then in such eventuality, the finding of the criminal court cannot be presumed to be conclusive in nature. The second situation arises, where acquittal is recorded by the Court or a complaint is dismissed on the ground that it does not disclose any cognizable offence. The findings recorded in such process may or may not have contained a finding that the prosecution case is based on falsehood and is thus frivolous.
Recording of such findings are only for the purpose of dismissal of the complaint or criminal prosecution. A sharp distinction has to be drawn between the aforesaid course and the course which is required for an action for a malicious prosecution. In an action for malicious prosecution if the ingredients as mentioned above are not satisfied, then the courts are not obliged to connect the lis simply on the basis of alleged accusation based on filing of the complaint simpliciter. The court is required to record finding in an action for malicious prosecution on all the aforesaid ingredients with reference to evidence on record...."
32. The meaning of malice and malicious prosecution has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray (2007) 14 SCC 568 as follows:-
"Malicious Prosecution Malice. Malice means an improper or indirect motive other than a desire to vindi - cate public justice or a private right. It need not necessarily be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill-will. It may CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 17 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
be due to a desire to obtain a collateral advantage. The principles to be borne in mind in the case of actions for malicious prosecutions are these: Malice is not merely the doing a wrongful act intentionally but it must be established that the defendant was actuated by mains animus, that is to say, by spite of ill- will or any indirect or improper motive. But if the defendant had reasonable or probable cause of launching the criminal prosecution no amount of malice will make him liable for damages. Reasonable and probable cause must be such as would operate on the mind of a discreet and reasonable man; 'malice' and 'want of reasonable and probable cause.' have reference to the state of the defendant's mind at the date of the initiation of criminal proceedings and the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove them.
33. In view of the above, it is evident that the defendant acted with reasonable and probable cause, subsequently, criminal prosecution against the plaintiff was lodged.
34. Further, in the present case, the plaintiff has pleaded that he was defamed due to the acts of the defendants. In this regard, it is observed that there is no statutory law of civil defamation in our country although its criminal aspect is covered under the provisions of Indian Penal code. The essential ingredients that must be established in a suit for civil defamation are that the alleged statement is: (i) false, (ii) defamatory, and (iii) published. In civil proceedings, the emphasis is on restoring the aggrieved person to the position he or she occupied prior to the commission of the wrong. In a case of defamation, this is done through CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 18 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
reimbursing the person for the harm caused to him by imposing damages on the wrongdoer. Thus, it has to be proved that the alleged defamatory contents damaged the reputation of the person (damages must be proved and not merely alleged or claimed). In a civil suit for defamation, the only ingredients which need to be proved are that the statement was false, caused harm to reputation and was published. Intention or motive does not need to be attributed to the offender.
35. In Halsbury's laws of England, defamatory statement i.e. libel is defined in the following terms:
"The defamatory statement is a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or to cause him to be shunned or avoided or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling Trade or business."
36. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Trilok Chand Bansal v. Bharat Bhushan Bansal (decided on 23.03.2017) has observed as follows:
"22. In my view all prosecutions ending in an acquittal cannot be said to be malicious. I have in Sannam Bharti vs. D.T.C (2013 SCC online DEL 3104) and in Akbar Ali vs. State 2014 SCC Online DEL 1547) held so. There is no presumption in law of a prosecution ending in an acquittal being malicious. Thus a plaint in a suit for CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 19 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
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.
23. 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".
37. In Deepak Rathaur & anr v. Shashi Bhushan Lal Dass (2016 SCC Online Del 5319) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on this point has observed that:
"8. The issue therefore is as to whether on account of the appellants/plaintiffs being acquitted in the criminal case this by itself can show that there is malicious prosecution of the appellants/plaintiffs by the respondent/defendant. In my opinion, the answer to that has to be in the negative because mere fact that there has been acquittal in the criminal case will not automatically prove malicious prosecution in as much as what is relevant to succeed in a civil suit for seeking damages for malicious prosecution is that it must be found that a criminal complaint case or an FIR was initiated without reasonable and probable cause. ...
10.... the Supreme Court has categorically held in the judgment in the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra (Smt.) (2009) 13 SCC 729 that judgment in a criminal case between the parties which has resulted in acquittal is not binding on the civil court and any finding CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 20 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
in the criminal proceedings by no stretch of imagination would be binding between civil proceedings. Therefore, I reject the argument urged on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs that this Court should hold the respondent/defendant guilty on the basis of reasoning and conclusions contained in the Judgment dated 6.8.2007 of the Additional Sessions Judge. The relevant para of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma (supra) is para 23 and the same reads as under:
"23. It brings us to the question as to whether previous judgment of a criminal proceeding would be relevant in a suit. Section 40 of the Evidence Act reads as under:
"Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial-- The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Courts from taking Cognizance of a suit or holding a trial is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial." This principle would, therefore, be applicable, inter alia, if the suit is found to be barred by the principle of res judicata or by reason of the provisions of any other statute. It does not lay down that a judgment of the criminal court would be admissible in the civil court for its relevance is limited. (See Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad). The judgment of a criminal court in a civil proceeding will only have limited application, viz., inter alia, for the purpose as to who was the accused and what was the result of the criminal proceedings. Any finding in a criminal proceeding by no stretch of imagination would be binding in a civil proceeding."
38. Precisely, in case Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Daya Sapra (2009) 13 SCC 729 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 21 of 25S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
"There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceeding at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case vis-à- vis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit "preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree."
39. It brings us to the question as to whether previous judgment of a criminal proceeding would be relevant in a suit. Section 40 of the Evidence Act reads as under:
"40. Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.--The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial." This principle would, therefore, be applicable, inter alia, if the suit is found to be barred by the principle of res judicata or by reason of the provisions of any other statute. It does not lay down that a judgment of the criminal court would be admissible in the civil court for its relevance is limited. (See Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad [(2009) 11 SCC 545 : (2009) 5 Scale 527] .) The judgment of a criminal court in a civil proceeding will only have limited application viz. inter alia, for the purpose as to who was the accused and what was the result of the criminal proceedings. Any finding in a criminal proceeding by no stretch of imagination would be binding in a civil proceeding."
CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 22 of 25S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
40. The grounds of the plaintiff on which the plaintiff has brought a suit for malicious prosecution against the defendants is the acquittal of plaintiff by the Ld. MM-01, and it is on the basis of his acquittal only that the plaintiff asserts that prosecution is false and malicious, is not sustainable on the reasons as discussed in the foregoing paras. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking damages for defamation and malicious prosecution, on account of losses allegedly suffered in terms of money and reputation due to a false and frivolous criminal complaint. However, the said claim is not tenable in view of the judgment in Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra (supra). This Court observes that the prosecution was initiated against the plaintiff on the basis of complaint and there is no material on record to show that a malicious/mischievous complaint was filed against the plaintiff. This court further observes that the officials of defendant no. 2 were only doing their job by carrying out investigation and prosecution thereof and their actions were all in good faith and due process of law was followed. From careful perusal of the record, it is relevant to state that it is not the case of plaintiff that there was any enmity between the plaintiff and defendant as enumerated in West Bengal State Electricity Board (supra).
41. As far as the quantum of damage is concerned, the plaintiff has mentioned in his written submissions that he suffered special CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 23 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
and general damages (Rs.1,00,00,000/- as injury/loss of reputation being gazetted post of service in Group A, Rs.50,00,000/- as mental torture and physical agony for the period of 19 years and Rs.40,00,000/- as loss of family honour). Plaintiff has further claimed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- towards legal assistant and general. However, no calculation has been provided by the plaintiff in the plaint regarding the amount sought as damages. The plaintiff has adduced the legal notice dated 26.09.2018 Ex.PW1/3 regarding the damage and compensation of Rs. 1,99,00,000/- but no breakup of the amount was provided in the said legal notice also.
42. Further, the plaintiff has not examined any other witness to show that his reputation has been lowered or his image tarnished amongst his social circle, friends and relatives etc. The plaintiff herein has thus not been able to prove that he suffered damages due to filing of criminal case by defendant and defamation was caused to him as alleged. Damage and compensation as pleaded by plaintiff have not been substantiated by requisite evidence.
43. The plaintiff has not been able to prove 'malicious prosecution' or the aspect of damages on the basis of the judgment of acquittal and other evidence adduced. Thus, this issued is decided against plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 24 of 25S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.
ISSUE NO. 4 (RELIEF)
44. In view of my findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No relief is made out in favour of plaintiff.
45. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly, upon filing of deficit court fees, if any.
46. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 27.04.2026 (Sunil Beniwal) District Judge-06(South), Digitally signed by Sunil Saket Courts, New Delhi Sunil beniwal beniwal Date:
2026.04.28 12:49:59 +0530 CS DJ No. 59/19 Page 25 of 25 S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.