Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Jagpal Singh on 24 January, 2013
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 275 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: January 24, 2013
State of Haryana and others
.. Appellants
Vs.
Jagpal Singh
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ajay Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J
In the suit filed by Jagpal Singh plaintiff-respondent (herein referred as, 'the plaintiff') for malicious prosecution for his harassment on account of civil as well as criminal litigation for six years, the court had decreed the suit for damages to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs. However, the appellate court, reduced it to Rs.3.00 lacs. Hence, this regular second appeal.
The factual background of the case is that the plaintiff was working as Forest Guard. In the year 1999, Khem Chand, Block Forest Officer-defendant No.3 made a false report No.2/105 dated 20.6.2000, regarding the cutting of six kikar trees from the forest and also prepared another damage report No.1/105 dated 16.6.2000 regarding loss on account of cutting of the trees. Despite the fact that the plaintiff had informed about the falsity of the reports prepared by Khem Chand defendant No.3, he was not heard, consequently much damage was caused to him on account of the harassment he had faced. He had reported to the department that the trees were cut as per the record and as per marking list, after obtaining permission from the department as per rules in course of his official duties. Even the factum of cutting and loss of trees in question, as mentioned in the damage report, was got inspected and verified from the concerned authority as well. He further pleaded that offender Forest Officer appellant No.2 granted sanction for filing a complaint against him on the basis of the aforesaid false reports. Resultantly, he had to undergo litigation for the period of six years R.S.A. No. 275 of 2013 (O&M) -2- continuously and had to suffer financial loss, mental sufferings on account of spending valuable time and energy in attending the courts and loss to his reputation. The appellants had intentionally put him to harassment knowing fully well that the plaintiff-respondent had acted in good faith and in discharge of his official duties. Ultimately, he was acquitted in the criminal case. Since the act of the appellants No.2 to 4 being the functionaries of the appellant No.1, was malafidely, with the intention to cause financial loss and mental sufferings, therefore, they are bound to compensate the respondent.
The appellants contested the cause by filing written statement in which they pleaded that the reports were prepared as per spot situation. However, they admitted that in the complaint against the plaintiff, the latter was acquitted vide judgment dated 12.4.2007 and no appeal was filed against the said judgment. Ultimately they prayed for dismissal of the suit.
No replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the payment of damages and compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs for the loss, pain and suffering suffered by him in a false and bogus litigation launched by the defendants?OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD
4. Whether the suit has not been properly verified?OPD
5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD
6. Relief.
The trial court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs, but on appeal, it was reduced to Rs.3.00 lacs.
The facts as set up in the plaint leading to the harassment, wastage of time, energy and reputation are more or less admitted. The copy of the judgment Ex.PW2/A rendered by the Special Environmental Court, Kurukshetra, reveals that the State had filed a complaint under Section 33 R.S.A. No. 275 of 2013 (O&M) -3- of the Indian Forest Act on the basis of the damage report dated 16.6.2000 and 20.6.2000 prepared by Khem Chand-defendant No.3, but it was ultimately dismissed as the State had failed to prove any sort of damage/loss to the State as well as the ill intention of the plaintiff to cause loss to the State. He was honourably acquitted and the judgment does not record if any benefit of doubt was given to him. Since the respondent had taken due permission and he had got inspected the site from the authorities then the lodging of the complaint again was nothing but a malafidy and malicious act of the appellants to harrass the public servant. The first appellate court appears to have rightly placed reliance on the judgment delivered in case Sukhwinder Singh vs. Ravinder Singh and others, 2003 (2) P.L.R. 697, wherein it was observed as under :-
"Where the proceedings were terminated in favour of the plaintiff. It has been found that the complaint was made on account of party faction in the village since the plaintiff had defeated Bakhtaur Singh in the election of Sarpanch. It was also found that the defendants knew the allegations made by them were not based upon facts as they are residents of the same village. The allegations were levelled in absence of any reasonable or probable cause...."
This Court in case Sukhwinder Singh's case (supra), further laid down the following elements for holding the factum with regard to malicious prosecution to have been proved:-
1. The proceedings must have been instituted or continued by the defendant;
2. He must have acted without reasonable or probable cause;
3. He must have acted maliciously;
4. In certain classes of cases the proceedings must have been unsuccessful that is to say, must have terminated in favour of the plaintiff non suing.
The said principles as mentioned in the Law of Torts by Salmond, Fourteenth Edition (1965) at page 588, were approved by the Division Bench of this Court in case Major Gian Singh v. S.P. Batra, AIR R.S.A. No. 275 of 2013 (O&M) -4- 1973 Punjab and Haryana 400 wherein it was observed as under :-
"In a suit for malicious prosecution, the burden of proving that the proceedings were initiated without any reasonable and probable cause lies on the plaintiff who seeks damages. It is no doubt true that the acquittal of the plaintiff in the earlier proceedings may some times give rise to a presumption that there was no reasonable and probable cause for his prosecution, but this presumption is rebuttable. The defendant in such a suit has merely to prove that the facts and circumstances did exists which gave rise to a belief in his mind that the other party was guilty. These facts and circumstances do not have to be viewed or weighed as would be done by a court of law, for otherwise in all those cases in which the prosecution fails, the complainant or the prosecutor would become liable for damages. All the four conditions mentioned by Shri John Salmond must co-exist before a defendant in a suit for malicious prosecution can be burdened with liability. Again, in the case of such a transaction in which fraud is alleged, the person defrauded remains ignorant of all or some of the attendant circumstances of the case till a late stage. If a person could visualise or foresee what is going to happen in future, he would never become a victim of fraud."
In the case in hand, the respondent has duly stated that he had proceeded to cut the trees as per the orders passed by the authorities and under their instructions. This allegation has not been refuted. The documents placed on record Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 also prove the fact as recorded in the report bearing No.1/105 and 2/105 that the trees were sold at Dodpur Sale Depot and the sale proceeds were got deposited in the department at D.R. Item No.74 of 2000. The aforesaid trees were sold in an open auction on 12.7.2000 and 17.8.2000. Another certificate Ex.A-2 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer (Production Range) Karnal, certified that the plaintiff-respondent had cut the trees as mentioned in the damage report and the same were auctioned and the sale proceeds have already been deposited in the Government account. All these documents indicate that the R.S.A. No. 275 of 2013 (O&M) -5- appellants knew fully well that the trees were cut under the instructions and were sold in open auction and the amount was duly deposited in the Government Treasury. But despite all these facts, a complaint with regard unauthorized cutting and galloping of the amount of those trees has been filed. Khem Chand (DW1) has admitted that on the basis of the damage report prepared by him, regarding filing of the complaint before the Environmental Court and the judgment also proves that he was acquitted in the said complaint as the State had failed to lead any evidence regarding damage to the State.
Now coming to the intention of Khem Chand and other officers of the State, it may be observed that Khem Chand was not clear in his intention. He did not make any effort to cross check the record before making false reports and wrong sanction was granted by the defendant No.2-appellant for filing the complaint against the plaintiff. They knew fully well that the plaintiff was not at fault at all and he was put to harassment. It is also established that there was no probable cause to lodge the complaint against the respondent.
As regards the quantum of compensation for the aforesaid malicious prosecution, the respondent had submitted that due to tensions which he was carrying on account of the false report, he had met with a road side accident and suffered multiple injuries and fracture on both his legs and feet. On account of the allegations he also suffered material and mental damage. He remained under consistent stress and strain due to the pendency of the criminal case against him for those six years. He had to spend a lot of money and valuable time in attending the dates of the hearing regularly. On account of the accident, he suffered permanent defect in his body, therefore, he cannot move properly. The appellants also continued their wrongful act for six long years and the respondent always remained under threat to be convicted and losing job during those six years and he certainly must have been lowered down in the eyes of his friends, colleagues and general public. Despite the fact that he had brought the true facts to the notice of the appellants in writing through letter Ex.PX/1, but the functionaries of the State did not budge. All these circumstances certainly contributed and invited this court's attention to make a guess work R.S.A. No. 275 of 2013 (O&M) -6- as to how much sufferings the appellant must have undergone and how much material loss he must have suffered on account of the false complaint which ultimately ended in his acquittal. Even in the absence of any specific evidence of material loss, the court could well assess and make a guess work while sitting in the arm chair of honest government employee as to how much one suffers on account of the mental torture, stress, agony, harassment and also on account of making rounds of the court for six years, therefore, to my mind, the assessment of amount to the tune of Rs.3.00 lacs awarded to him, without making any further provision with regard to interest, was not on the higher side.
No substantial question of law arises for determination. Dismissed.
January 24, 2013 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge