Delhi District Court
Sh. Hem Raj Singh vs Smt. Pooja on 12 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE - 03/SED,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
PRESIDED OVER BY MS. ISHA THAKUR
Suit No. 1025/20
In the matter of:-
SH. HEM RAJ SINGH,
S/o Late Sh. Than Singh,
R/o H.No. 255, Ground Floor,
Sunlight Colony No.1,
Near Maharani Bagh,
New Delhi-110014 ...Plaintiff
Vs.
SMT. POOJA,
W/o Sh. Pratap Singh,
R/o H.No. 255, Second Floor,
Sunlight Colony No.1,
Near Maharani Bagh,
New Delhi-110014 ...Defendant
Date of institution of Suit : 23.10.2020
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 17.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 12.06.2025
JUDGMENT FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES.
1.The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendants for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution.
PLAINT:-
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that from last four years, the bathroom, toilet situated on the first floor in the property Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 1 of 15 THAKUR Date:
2025.06.12 17:21:43 +0530 bearing No. 255, Sunlight Colony No.1, New Delhi-110014 are leaking from the first floor and filthy water seeped into the room and varandah at the ground floor and the toilet pipe is completely jammed and not clean by the persons residing on the first floor, due to which sewer over flow making the house of the plaintiff inhospitable for living. It is further stated that due to the said problem, the plaintiff filed the civil suit against the defendant and her husband Pratap, Kalpana and Chander Kanta before the civil court and summons of the said suit were issued to the defendant and other persons.
3. It is stated that after receiving the summons on 31.08.2018, defendant lodged a false complaint before the Police station and FIR No. 273/2018 under Section 509 IPC was registered on 06.09.2018 and the plaintiff was formally arrested and released on bail. That the Hon'ble Court vide Judgment dated 24.09.2019 acquitted the plaintiff from all the charges. It is further stated by the plaintiff that defendant leveled false allegations against the plaintiff, which are totally derogatory and defamatory in nature and the allegations of the defendant proved to be false before the Hon'ble Criminal Court.
4. It is claimed by the plaintiff that he has suffered mental agony and irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in terms of money and accordingly, defendant is liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000/-
to the plaintiff as damages for causing mental agony, Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR THAKUR Date:
CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 2 of 15 2025.06.12 17:21:48 +0530 harassment, defamation and financial losses to the plaintiff due to the false and frivolous FIR No. 273/2018 dated 06.09.2018.
5. On the strength of these facts, the plaintiff has prayed for following reliefs:-
A. Pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- in fovor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as damages. B. The cost of the suit may kindly be awarded to the plaintiff. C. Any other relief(s), which this Hon'ble Court may just deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in vavor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
6. It is the contention of the defendant that the present suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dimissed as an enquiry was conducted by the IO on the complaint lodged by the defendant and thereafter, the criminal case FIR no. 273/18 u/s 509 IPC registered at PS Sunlight Colony and acquittal in the criminal case would not mean the plaintiff is entitled for damages for malicious prosecution in a civil case. It is further contended by the defendant that since the plaintiff has failed to prove that the FIR was lodged without any reasonable and probable cause, the present suit is liable to be dismissed and the FIR/criminal trial initiated by the defendant was not vitiated by any ill will or malice hence there is no malicious prosecution. It is with these assertions that the present suit has been defended.
Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 3 of 15 THAKUR Date:
2025.06.12 17:21:51 +0530
7. Defendant has placed her reliance in Judgments titled as Suprati Vs. Shamsuddin, AIR 1928, All 337, Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra(Smt) (2009) 13 SCC 729, Gangadhar Pandey Vs. Prem Singh, RFA No. 269/13 date of decision 15.01.2014 and West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Dilip Kumar Ray, AIR 2007 SC 976.
8. Thereafter, plaintiff denied each and every averment of the defendant in his replication.
9. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.07.2023, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? OPP.
2. Whether there exist any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff? OPD.
3. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:-
10. The plaintiff deposed as PW-1, vide affidavit of evidence exhibited as Ex.PW1/A and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
11. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the contents of the affidavit and documents are not being reproduced. The plaintiff relied upon the following documents: -
Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR THAKUR Date:
CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 4 of 15 2025.06.12 17:21:54 +0530
1. Certified copy of order dated 24.09.2019 of acquittal in case FIR No. 273/2018, u/s 509 IPC, PS Sun Light Colony, New Delhi -
110014, passed by Ld. Court of Sh. Ashish Gupta, Ld. MM, South- East, Saket is exhibited as Ex.PW1/1(Colly.). Running into nine pages.
12. PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
13. Thereafter, the plaintiff closed his evidence vide separate statement on 26.02.2024. The matter was put up for defendant evidence.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:-
14. The defendant deposed as DW-1, vide affidavit of evidence exhibited as Ex.DW1/A and reiterated the contents of the WS.
15. DW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
16. Thereafter, the defendant closed his evidence vide separate statement on 04.07.2024. The matter was put up for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
17. Thereafter, final arguments were heard from both the sides.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS:-
Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR THAKUR Date:
CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 5 of 15 2025.06.12 17:21:58 +0530 Since Issue no. 2 is in the nature of a preliminary issue, it is being dealt with first.
Issue no. (2) : Whether there exist any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff? OPD.
18. Defendant has argued that her complaint with the P.S. Sun Light Colony, New Delhi was not vitiated by ill-will or malice and that she had filed a bonafide complaint with the police and thus, only after an enquiry by the police an FIR No. 273/2018 under Section 509 was registered by the police against the plaintiff. Defendant has further argued that the Judgment dated 24.09.2019 of acquittal of plaintiff passed by the Ld. MM-07, South-East, Saket in the criminal case is not binding on the Civil Court. It is thus the case of defendant that plaintiff has no cause of action, as he has failed to impute malice on part of the defendant.
19. In the present suit, plaintiff has stated that cause of action arose on 06.09.2018 when defendant lodged an FIR against the plaintiff and cause of action further arose when the plaintiff faced the entire trial before the Criminal Court in case FIR No. 273/2018 U/s 509 IPC. The cause of action is further stated to have arisen on 24.09.2019 when plaintiff was acquitted by the Ld. MM-07, South-East, Saket Court and is averred to be continuing.
Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.06.12 CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 6 of 15 17:22:01 +0530
20. It is settled law that cause of action consists of a bundle of facts, which gives a ground to enforce a legal right which plaintiff must prove so as to get a judgment in his favor. In order to decide whether a suit has a subsisting cause of action or not, the court has to look at the plaint and nothing else. Further, there is a difference between a plea that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and plea that there is no cause of action for instituting a suit. For determining whether the plaint discloses the cause of action or not, averments in the plaint alone are relevant and the court while deciding this issue need not look into the proof of cause of action.
21. On perusal of the plaint and annexed documents, it is evident that a clear cause of action has been averred by the plaintiff in the present suit to recover an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the defendant as damages for malicious prosecution.
22. Accordingly, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. (1): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? OPP.
23. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is the resident of the ground floor of the property bearing no. 255, Sunlight Colony No.1, New Delhi-110014 and from last four years, the bathroom and the toilet situated on the first floor 110014 are leaking from Digitally signed by ISHA CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 7 of 15 ISHA THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.06.12 17:22:05 +0530 the first floor and filthy water had seeped into the room and varandah of the ground floor and the toilet pipe is completely jammed due to which sewer over-flew making the house of the plaintiff inhospitable for living and to rectify the said situation, plaintiff had instituted a civil suit against the defendant, her husband namely, Pratap and two other persons.
24. It is further the case of the plaintiff that after receiving the summons of the said suit on 31.08.2018, to retaliate, defendant filed a false and malicious complaint with the Police station Sun Light Colony, New Delhi and an FIR bearing No. 273/2018 under Section 509 IPC was registered on 06.09.2018. That pursuant to the criminal proceedings, plaintiff was formally arrested and released on bail and was later, acquitted from all the charges by Ld. MM-07, South-East, Saket vide Judgment dated 24.09.2019. It is claimed by the plaintiff that due to the malicious complaint of the defendant, he suffered mental agony, harassment, defamation and financial losses for which defendant is liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as damages.
25. Per Contra, defendant has claimed that the criminal complaint filed by her was not vitiated by any ill will or malice and mere acquittal of plaintiff in the criminal case FIR No. 273/2018 under Section 509 IPC vide Judgment dated 24.09.2019 would not entitle the plaintiff to damages for malicious prosecution in a civil case.
Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.06.12 CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 8 of 15 17:22:09 +0530
26. As laid down in Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (25th Edition, 2006 at page 321-322), to claim damages for malicious prosecution, plaintiff must prove the following:-
1. He was prosecuted by the defendant.
2. The proceedings complained of terminated in favor of the plaintiff if from their nature they were capable of so terminating.
3. The prosecution was instituted against him without any reasonable or probable cause.
4. 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. The plaintiff has suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to the security of his property.
27. In the present case it stands admitted by both the parties that the plaintiff was prosecuted in FIR No. 273/2018 under Section 509 IPC and that the said proceedings terminated in his favour as he was acquitted by Ld. MM-07, South-East, Saket vide Judgment dated 24.09.2019, which is Ex. PW-1/1. Thus, the abovementioned first two elements stands proved. The onus to prove the remaining three elements lies on the plaintiff, Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 9 of 15 THAKUR Date:
2025.06.12 17:22:12 +0530 however, before delving into the merits of the case raised by the plaintiff qua the remaining three elements, I deem it appropriate the discuss the meaning and scope of 'reasonable or probable cause' and 'malice'.
28. In Tarwinder Kumar Bedi v. Jit Parkash (2014 SCC Online P&H 20259), the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held:
"....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". Furthermore, 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: "Malice means an improper or indirect motive other than a desire to vindicate public justice or a private right. It need not necessarily be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill-will. It may 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 Digitally signed by ISHA CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 10 of 15 ISHA THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.06.12 17:22:16 +0530 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.".
Thus, In malicious prosecution there are two essential elements:-
a. No probable cause existed for instituting the prosecution or suit complained of;
b. Such prosecution or suit terminated in some way favorably to the defendant therein.
Therefore, a case cannot be termed as 'malicious prosecution' if there exist a reasonable or probable cause, despite the existence of an ill-will on the part of defendant.
29. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Tirlok Chand Bansal v.
Bharat Bhushan Bansal observed: "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 compensation for malicious prosecution merely stating that the plaintiff was Digitally signed by ISHA CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 11 of 15 ISHA THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.06.12 17:22:19 +0530 prosecuted by or at the instance of the defendant and was acquitted, would not disclose a cause of action. There can be manifold reasons for acquittal. Every acquittal is not a consequence of the prosecution being malicious. It cannot be lost sight of that the remedy of compensation has been provided for "malicious prosecution" and not for "wrongful or uncalled for or failed prosecution".
30. In the present case, plaintiff has claimed that the defendant had filed the FIR No. 273/2018 under Section 509 IPC in retaliation of his civil suit and has placed reliance upon the Judgment dated 24.09.2019 [Ex.PW1/1(Colly.)] to substantiate the same. Perusal of PW1/1(Colly.) reveals that the Ld. MM-07, South- East, Saket had acquitted the plaintiff by taking note of inconsistencies in the statement of defendant and on account of the fact that the alleged act of the plaintiff fell outside the purview of Section 509 IPC. Ld. MM-07, South-East, Saket had further observed: "Keeping in mind the strained relationship between the parties, the possibility of the present case being a counter blast of the suit filed by the accused inter alia against the husband cannot be ruled out." and "At this stage, the contradictions in the complaint Ex.PW1/A read with her testimony may also be recalled which also reiterate and fortify the possibility of false implication of the accused in this case." . Plaintiff has based his case solely on the observations of the Ld. MM-07, South-East, Saket.
Digitally
signed by
ISHA
ISHA THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 12 of 15 2025.06.12
17:22:23
+0530
31. However, in the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra (Smt.) (2009) 13 SCC 729, the Supreme Court held: "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". Further, Hon'ble High Court in Suparti v. Shamshuddin (AIR 1928 All
337) held: "In our opinion the judgments of the criminal Courts are conclusive for the purpose of showing that the prosecution terminated in favour of the plaintiff, but we doubt if the findings of the criminal Courts by themselves are any evidence of the malice or want of reasonable and probable cause. It is for the civil Court to go into all the evidence and decide for itself whether such malice or cause existed or not" . Therefore, the argument of plaintiff that he is entitled to damages on the basis of the observations of the Ld. Criminal Court in the Judgment dated 24.09.2019 is found to be untenable. The Plaintiff has not led any evidence to substantiate his imputations of "lack of reasonable or probable cause" and "malice" on part of the defendant. Additionally, mere acquittal of plaintiff does not mean that defendant had initiated a false and frivolous case against plaintiff out of malice and without just and reasonable cause. This cannot place reliance upon the observations of the Ld. Criminal Court especially when the evidence recorded before the Ld. Criminal Court was not produced for the perusal Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 13 of 15 THAKUR Date:
2025.06.12 17:22:26 +0530 of this court. Furthermore, the scope of the criminal trial and a civil litigation is entirely different.
32. In light of aforesaid discussion, it is evident that to succeed in the present suit, plaintiff must prove the ingredients of malicious prosecution as mentioned above and that he cannot claim damages merely on the basis of his acquittal. In the present case, no doubt the ingredients of prosecution by defendant u/s 509 IPC and termination in favor of plaintiff has been duly shown by plaintiff, however, other ingredients, that is, institution of prosecution without any reasonable doubt or probable cause, malicious intention, and damage/loss suffered by plaintiff have not been shown and proved. Perusal of evidence led by plaintiff shows that whereas he has deposed on his affidavit that defendant instituted a malicious prosecution against him under section 509 IPC and in the said case, plaintiff was acquitted by the ld. Court on 24.09.2019 and further deposed that the said complaint was filed by defendant without any reasonable cause due to which plaintiff suffered mental agony, harassment, defamation and financial losses, however, in order to establish the same, plaintiff has only produced the certified copy of the judgment dated 24.09.2019 which is Ex. PW-1/1(Colly.). Perusal of evidence lead by plaintiff further shows that even though plaintiff has deposed that he has been defamed by the defendant and when police took him to police station, his entire locality watched him, he has not examined any witnesses to corroborate his version of the facts. Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 14 of 15 THAKUR Date:
2025.06.12 17:22:30 +0530
33. The onus of proof lies on the plaintiff to show that defendant had initiated a false and frivolous case causing him mental agony, harassment, defamation and financial losses, by leading evidence in the present suit as findings of criminal court by themselves are not evidence of malice or lack of reasonable and probable cause and it is for civil court to look into evidence and decide if any malice existed or not. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to discharge his burden and cannot be held entitled to damages.
34. Accordingly, Issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
RELIEF:-
35. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is concluded that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case on preponderance of probabilities and therefore, suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
36. No order as to costs of the suit.
37. File be consigned to Record-Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedISHA by ISHA THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2025.06.12 17:22:34 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (Isha Thakur) Civil Judge-03, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi 12.06.2025 CS SCJ 1025/20 HEM RAJ SINGH Vs. POOJA PAGE 15 of 15