Delhi District Court
Arun Goel vs Renu Goel on 22 December, 2023
-:: 1 ::- Date: 22.12.2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-03 (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS DJ No. 810/2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Arun Goel
S/o Late Sh. Puran Chand Goel,
R/o property No. 5, Pocket - D-12,
Ground Floor, Sector - 7, Rohini,
New Delhi - 110085. ...... Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Renu Goel,
W/o Sh. Arun Goel,
B-42, Ground Floor, Overseas Apartment,
Sector - 9, Rohini, New Delhi - 110085. .....Defendant
Date of Institution : 07.09.2017
Date of Final Arguments Heard : 22.12.2023
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 22.12.2023
SUIT FOR COMPENSATION & DAMAGES FOR HARASSMENT,
MENTAL AGONY, TORTURE AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
AMOUNTING TO Rs. 10,00,000/- (RUPEES TEN LAKHS ONLY)
JUDGMENT
1 The present suit is filed for compensation and damages for harassment, mental agony and malicious prosecution amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs only).
2 The brief facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are as under:-
2.1 It is stated that the parties of the present suit are married couple as CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 1 of 28
-:: 2 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 they got married in Delhi on 15.02.1997 according to the Hindu Rites and Customs. It is stated that out of the said wedlock, a baby boy, namely, Nikunj was born on 01.06.1998, and he is residing with defendant.
2.2 It is stated that earlier the plaintiff alongwith his elder brother Sh.
Manoj Kumar Goel had jointly purchased a property bearing no. A- 110, Prashant Vihar, Delhi 110085 and that became the matrimonial home of the plaintiff and the defendant after the marriage. It is stated that after marriage, the defendant came into a joint family at the said house bearing no. A-110, Prashant Vihar, Delhi alongwith the plaintiff, his parents and brother's family.
2.3 It is stated that the right from the day after plaintiff's marriage with defendant, the defendant never behaved in a rational manner and her behavior was irrational, erratic and cruel towards the plaintiff as well as his parents and brother and his sister-in-law. It is stated that defendant was very temperamental and even short tempered. It is stated that the defendant was in a constant habit of quarreling on non issues of insulting the parents, guests. The plaintiff created pressure by calling police at the drop of the hat. It is stated that because of defendant's excessively cruel behavioral pattern, the father of the plaintiff suffered severe grief, mental depression and ultimately succumbed to death on 26.09.1998. It is stated that the defendant also resorted to manhandling of the plaintiff and his aged and ailing parents on numerous occasions and her cruel conduct had been constant source of insult, defamation and lowering down of their prestige in the society.
2.4 It is stated that due to quarrelsome nature of the defendant, defendant CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 2 of 28
-:: 3 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 started creating great disturbances and harassment towards plaintiff's family members and therefore it became impossible to pull on and reside together in a joint family.
2.5 It is stated that plaintiff and his said brother were forced to sell the said matrimonial house i.e. A-110, Prashant Vihar, Delhi - 110085, and the sale proceeds thereof was divided equally between the plaintiff and his said elder brother. It is stated that from his half share as received from the corpus of aforesaid sale proceeds, the plaintiff purchased another property for a total consideration of Rs. 2,99,000/- on 24.09.1999 i.e. House No. B-42, Ground Floor, Overseas Apartment, Sector - 9, Rohini, New Delhi - 110085, wherein defendant is residing to the exclusion of plaintiff.
2.6 It is stated that the defendant did not allow the plaintiff's widow mother to enter in the property which was purchased by the plaintiff. It is stated that because of cruel and quarrelsome nature of defendant and also her refusal, the plaintiff's mother lived with plaintiff's said brother and his family.
2.7 It is stated that parties with their minor son started residing together in the said flat at Overseas Apartment, Sector - 9, Rohini, Delhi on or about 15.10.1999. Defendant became more cruel towards the plaintiff day by day and used to derive sadistic pleasure by torturing the plaintiff and harassing him continuously. It is stated that despite being house wife, the defendant would not cook meals for the plaintiff and not cared to look after or take care of his clothes, comfort or well being. It is stated that during the stay of the plaintiff in his said flat, he had to eat his meals outside most of the times and had to wash his own clothes besides looking after their son who was just 16-17 months old.
CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 3 of 28
-:: 4 ::- Date: 22.12.2023
It is stated that in October 1999, the defendant threatened to immolate herself and set the whole house on fire. She had in fact opened the gas burner and let the LPG gas seeped continuously for few minutes. She had threatened that she would ablaze everything and thus set the whole house on fire and the plaintiff and his parents and his brother's family would be implicated in the criminal case.
2.8 It is stated the defendant's parents would also interfere constantly in their family affairs and indulged in abetting of the above mentioned matrimonial offences of cruelty. It is stated that the defendant turned the plaintiff out of the house in October 2000 in only the clothes he was wearing without even allowing him to take any other thing with him and unscrupulously occupied the same in league with her parents. It is stated that defendant not only withdrew him from the society of the plaintiff but also deprived the plaintiff from the pleasure of their son's company and childhood most unreasonably and unjustly without any just cause or excuse.
2.9 It is stated that the defendant in order to further torture and harass the plaintiff, his mother, brother and brother's family filed a false criminal complaint against them and in pursuance of that an FIR No. 588/01 was registered u/s 406/498A IPC at PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi. In view of the FIR registered, plaintiff had to face trial lasting about 14 years but was ultimately acquitted of the charged offences u/s 406/498A IPC vide the final order & judgment dated 26.05.2014 passed by concerned Ld. Mahila Court, Ld. MM, Rohini Delhi.
2.10 It is stated that defendant was not satisfied in seeing the acquittal of the plaintiff and therefore in order to harass and embarrass him and prolong his agony further, she preferred a Criminal Appeal u/s 378 of CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 4 of 28
-:: 5 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 Cr.P.C against the plaintiff herein impugning the said acquittal order. It is stated that the said appeal was also dismissed and the said acquittal order was upheld vide order dated 05.11.2016 passed by the Ld. Appellate Court; Ld. ASJ - 03, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. It is stated that in this way, the plaintiff was kept entangled in the false criminal cases for about 16 years at the instance of the defendant.
2.11 It is stated that for those 16 long years, the plaintiff had to attend the court hearings because of the same, the whole life of plaintiff got ruined because of constant threats, tension and harassment arising out of the criminal case - running his joint business became impossible which he had in partnership with his elder brother Mr. Manoj Kumar Goel in the name and style of M/s Jai Bharat Trading Company. It is stated that the said partnership firm had to be closed down and the possession of the premises from where it was running had to be surrendered to its landlord in the financial year of 2002-03. Closing of this firm occurred on account of harassment and frivolous litigation instituted at the instance of the defendant.
2.12 It is stated that the defendant was not satisfied with lodging of the aforesaid false criminal case/FIR and therefore she had also instituted a petition u/s 125 of Cr.P.C on 06.12.2003 alongwith her son (being minor at that time). It is stated that the plaintiff had to contest this petition also and it was disposed off vide final order dated 18.03.2014 by the concerned Family Court, North, Rohini, Delhi vide which the maintenance qua defendant was allowed from 12.12.2003 till 31.12.2009 only @ Rs. 2,000/- per month only and maintenance thereafter was declined (qua defendant) holding her to be gainfully employed. It is stated that constant trauma of looking after this CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 5 of 28
-:: 6 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 frivolous court case as well for 11 years, further ruined plaintiff's financial condition and his peace.
2.13 It is stated the in her lust & passion for inflicting harassment & cruelty further had also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff, his mother, his said elder brother Sh. Manoj Kumar Goel and his sister-in-law (bhabhi), Smt. Mamta Goel in November 2000 seeking injunction against her forceful dispossession / eviction from the said property no. B-42, Overseas Apartment, Sector - 9, Rohini, New Delhi - 110085 and the suit was disposed off on recording of statements of all the parties dated 10.11.2000.
2.14 The defendant in order to further harass and prolong the miseries, she caused a filing of a suit for declaration, rendition of account, permanent & mandatory injunctions" in the name of Mst. Nikun (but minor at that time) natural guardian and next friend - against the plaintiff herein, his mother Smt. Vidyawati and brother, Sh. Manoj Kumar Goel. Defendant again filed frivolous case which ultimately got dismissed vide final order and judgment dated 21.11.2014. It is stated that for those 14 long years, plaintiff had to attend the court hearings of the said civil suit because of this, plaintiff's life got entangled in court hearings and dates and liasioning with his advocates leaving him with little time to look after his career.
2.15 It is stated that the plaintiff being entangled in the aforesaid frivolous litigations could not either get a steady job or establish a business and therefore his financial condition remained precarious all along. It is stated that the plaintiff resides with his mother at above noted address of Sector - 7, Rohini which is a rented accommodation taken on monthly rent of Rs. 8,500/- by his mother.
CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 6 of 28
-:: 7 ::- Date: 22.12.2023
2.16 It is stated that plaintiff does not have any accommodation or residence or house or home anywhere whatsoever of his own except the said house no. B-42, Overseas Apartment, Sector - 9, Rohini, Delhi - 85 and therefore, the plaintiff needs this house for himself and his old mother all the more, but the defendant has occupied the same as afore-stated and has flatly refused to vacate the same. It is stated that the defendant does not have any right, title or interest in the plaintiff's said flat at Overseas Apartment, Sector - 9, Rohini, Delhi.
2.17 It is stated that all these misdeeds and illegalities perpetuated by the defendant has not only caused mental agony and hardship to the plaintiff but also ruined his reputation and goodwill in the society, colony and among his friends and relatives.
2.18 The prayer made by plaintiff is inter alia against the defendant reproduced herein below:
a) To pass a decree for compensation and damages for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with pendent lite and future interest @ 18% from the date of filing of the suit till realization against the defendant.
b) To award the full costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
3 The defence of the defendant as stated by her in her WS is as under:-
3.1 It is stated that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant which shows that the defendant is liable to pay any damages and compensation, if the performance or part of work is not done by the defendant towards the plaintiff.
3.2 It is stated that the present suit has not been drafted as per Order VII Rule 1 CPC, hence the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 7 of 28
-:: 8 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 3.3 It is stated that the present suit is barred under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3.4 It is stated that plaintiff has not filed any document in his favour which shows that the defendant is liable for damages or compensation, hence it is violation of Order VII Rule 14 CPC.
3.5 It is stated that the present suit is liable to be dismissed under Article of the Limitation Act 1963.
3.6 It is stated that the plaintiff has concealed material facts and particulars that he had filed a petition of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide No. 506/2000, titled as "Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel" and the same was dismissed due to non-prosecution.
3.7 It is stated that Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the same is barred under the provision of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
3.8 It is stated that the plaintiff has not filed any document of his income tax returns, his firm turnover balance sheet, his counsel bill etc. and moreover the plaintiff has failed to mention that how the defendant is responsible for all his losses. It is further stated that the plaintiff would be incompetent to handle business, hence, he was doing and showing his service when the maintenance case of defendant was pending against him.
3.9 It is stated that remaining paras of plaint are wrong, false and frivolous. Hence, the same are denied.
4 Replication has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the written statement filed by the defendant. In the replication filed on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has reiterated the facts as stated in the plaint.
CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 8 of 28
-:: 9 ::- Date: 22.12.2023
5 On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed vide order
dated 15.04.2019:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/-
on account of damages as prayed for ? OPP
(ii) Relief.
6 In order to prove the case, plaintiff has examined the following
witnesses:
6.1 PW-1 is Sh. Arun Goel, S/o late Sh. Puran Chand Goel, aged about 49 years, R/o H.No. 5, Pocket - D-12, Ground Floor, Sector- 7, Rohini, New Delhi - 110085. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A and B. He relied upon the following documents:
i. Ex.PW1/1 (19 pages) is the certified copy of the order/judgment dated 26.05.2014.
ii. Ex.PW1/2 (11 pages) is the certified copy of the order and judgment dated 05.11.2016 passed by the Ld. Appellate Court.
iii. Ex.PW1/3 (19 pages) is the certified copy of the order and judgment dated 18.03.2014.
iv. Mark A is the plaint.
v. Mark B (Colly) is the copy of statement of all the parties.
vi. Mark C is the copy of final judgment dated 21.11.2014.
vii. Mark D is the copy of the rent agreement dated 16.11.2016.
7 In order to prove the case, the defendant had filed evidence by way of
affidavit of DW-1, namely, Ms. Renu Goel but vide order dated CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 9 of 28
-:: 10 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 02.11.2023, her right to lead defence evidence was closed in view of Section 35B of CPC.
8 I have heard the final arguments and perused the record.
9 My issue-wise findings are as follows:
Issue No. (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 3,74,619/- as prayed for? OPP and Issue No. (ii) If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if yes, for what period and at what rate? OPP.
9.1 The onus to prove issue no. (i) is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff in order to prove issue no. (i) has examined himself and had placed reliance upon Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 and Mark A to Mark D. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is the husband of defendant and got married in Delhi on 15.02.1997. The plaintiff has stated that the defendant had implicated the plaintiff in multiple frivolous litigations since 2000, which are as under:-
(i) A petition no. 426/10/03 under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance which was allowed in favour of the minor son but not the defendant as the defendant despite being gainfully employed in the year 2010 had concealed the said fact from the Ld. Judge, Family Courts, North, Delhi decided on 18.03.2014 (Ex. PW1/3).
(ii) A state case arising out of FIR bearing no. 588/01 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, in which the plaintiff was acquitted vide judgment of the Ld. MM, Rohini Court, Delhi on 26.05.2014 (Ex. PW1/1).
(iii) An appeal against the order / judgment of the Ld. MM, Rohini CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 10 of 28
-:: 11 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 Court, Delhi on 26.05.2014 of acquittal arising out of FIR bearing no. 588/01 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, which was also dismissed by the Ld. ASJ, Rohini Court, Delhi on 05.11.2016 (Ex. PW1/2).
(iv) A civil suit for seeking permanent injunction bearing no.
778/2000 in the court of Ld. SCJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi (Mark- A), which was disposed off on 10.11.2000 after the plaintiff herein undertook that he will not dispossess the defendant without following due process of law (statement recorded in Mark-B).
(v) A civil suit bearing no. 410 /14 for seeking declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction and for rendition of accounts in the court Ld. CJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, which was dismissed on 21.11.2014 (Mark-C).
9.2 It is averred by the plaintiff that all the dispute had arisen between the parties due to defendant and her actions. It is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant had lodged FIR no. 588/2021 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC against the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff had to battle the said litigation for a span of 14 years and was finally acquitted on 26.05.2014. Even this acquittal judgment dated 26.05.2014 was challenged in appeal by the defendant before the Ld. ASJ-03, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, who had upheld the order / judgment of acquittal of the Ld. Trial court dated 26.05.2014 vide order dated 05.06.2011. The case of the plaintiff is for claiming damages for the loss caused to the plaintiff due to the initiation of the false and frivolous litigation against the plaintiff.
9.3 During the course of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendant has CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 11 of 28
-:: 12 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 stated that the suit of the plaintiff is time barred as the litigations stated at point (i), (iv) and (v) are beyond the limitation period under Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which prescribes that the compensation for malicious prosecution can be sought within one year when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution otherwise terminated. It is argued that since the order of acquittal dated 26.05.2014 became final by Ld. ASJ on 05.11.2016 only said litigation can come within the purview of the present suit for damages. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff had conceded to the aforesaid arguments of the defendant and has stated that the defendant has falsely implicated him in FIR no. 588/01, owing to which the plaintiff has suffered loss of business, reputation, goodwill and has incurred legal expenses. Before delving further into the matter, the law with regard to malicious prosecution is stated as under:
9.4 The Privy Council in Sah Mauji Ram Vs. Sah Chaturbhuj AIR 1939 Privy Council 225 held that in order to succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution, one has to establish that the defendant acted without any reasonable and probable cause and maliciously. Thereafter, Hon'ble High Court of Nagpur in Sitaram Vs. Dudharam AIR 1952 Nagpur 310 held in para 5 & 6 :
"5. Reasonable and probable cause may be defined as "an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based upon a full conviction, founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be true, would reasonable lead any ordinarily prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the accuser, to the conclusion that the person charged was probably guilty of the crime imputed."HLRNIMAN V. SMITH', 1935 AC 305 at p.316. Distinction, however, has to be drawn between the case of an accuser who has personal knowledge of the truth or otherwise of the accusation and th case of one who has no such knowledge but who on information received or from circumstances honestly believes in the guilt of the accused provided he does not fail or neglect to take CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 12 of 28
-:: 13 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 reasonable care to inform himself of the true facts before commencing or proceeding with the prosecution.
6. Innocence is proved by proving acquittal in criminal proceedings where the prosecutor must know whether his accusation against the accused is false or true. If the accused is innocent it follows that the prosecutor must be telling a falsehood and there must be a want of reasonable and probable cause. Thus, in this class of case proof of innocence of the accused by production of the judgment in the criminal case is sufficient for the plaintiff to discharge the burden of proving want of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution......"
9.5 The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Badduri ChandraReddy and another v. Pammi Rami Reddy and others, (S) AIR ANDHRA 218 V (V.42, C. 81 Oct.)(1) held in para 9 :
"9. The principle laid down in 'Gaya Prasad V. Bhagat Singh (B)', was accepted by the Privy Council in another case - 'Balbhadar Singh v. Badri Sah', AIR 1926 PC 46(F). It may be taken that it is now well established, that, if a person does nothing beyond giving information to the police which he considers to be true, an action for damages for malicious prosecution is not maintainable against him. If on the other hand, besides setting the law in motion he takes an active part in the conduct of the prosecution he made be regarded as the real prosecutor, although the actual prosecution is by the police and renders himself liable for damages."
The Hon'ble High Court further held in para 16 of the said judgment :
16. .......Further the principle that should guide the determination of the liability for damages for malicious prosecution, as already stated by me, is that the person sought to be made liable for damages should be directly or primarily responsible for the prosecution. It is difficult to say that one who gives some information to another who lodges a report before the Police can be brought within the scope of such a principle."
9.6 The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Major Gian Singh Vs. S. P. Batra AIR 1973 Punjab and Haryana 400 (V 60 C 114) held in para 13 :
"13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has urged before us that the respondent, being an aggrieved person, had CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 13 of 28
-:: 14 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 merely set the law into motion by placing the facts before a competent Court. The court itself forwarded the complaint to the Police for investigation. If, as a result of this investigation, the Police had actually arrested the appellant and put him for trial before a Court of law, the respondent could not be held liable for any damages. In short, it was submitted that the respondent could not be regarded as a prosecutor. We are unable to agree with the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent. A defendant in a suit for prosecution can escape liability only if he places true and correct information before the Police or a Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence charged against the plaintiff. Where a defendant conceals the material facts or distorts them to an unreasonable extent, he cannot be allowed to urge that he was not the prosecutor. In Balbhaddar Singh v. Badri Sah, AIR 1926 PC 46, it was observed as follows :-
In any country, as in India, prosecution is not private, an action for malicious prosecution in the most literal sense of the word could not be raised against any private individual. But giving information to the authorities which naturally leads to prosecution is just the same thing. And if that is done and trouble caused an action will lie. But it must be kept in view that, so far as the police were concerned, there was ample cause for the initiation of prosecution proceedings."
It was further held in para 15 of the said judgment :
"15. ......... 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 sometimes 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 exist 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."
9.7 The Hon'ble High Court further held in referred judgment that existence of reasonable and probable cause has to be judged in relation to state of mind at the time when he initiated the proceedings. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in C. B. Aggarwal Vs. P. Krishna Kapoor, Suit 767 of 1983, decided on 28-11-1994 held in para 29 :
CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 14 of 28
-:: 15 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 "29. On the basis of the various pronouncements of courts in India and in England. It can safely be concluded that civil actions which are normally covered under 'abuse of process' are relating to attachment or property, damage of a person, malicious bankruptcy, winding up proceedings and such other processes of the Court which are abused by a party. Only those cases can be considered by the courts which satisfy the following ingredients:-
1. The proceedings must have been instituted or continued by 'the defendant;
2. He must have acted without reasonable and probable cause;
3. He must have acted maliciously;
4. The proceedings must have been unsuccessful - that is to say, must have terminated in favour of the plaintiff now suing;
5. The legal process was not only without foundation but is used for an improper and collateral purpose. Such orders were not used for a purpose, for which the court intended to pass the order or the order passed by a court in a case has been used with ulterior motives to cause damage to the reputation, person or property of the affected party."
It was further held in para 30 of the said judgment : "30. The probable cause is not the same thing as sufficient cause and has to be judged from the standard of reasonable and ordinary prudent men. The plaintiff is obliged to give positive evidence of not only the lack of proper probable and reasonable cause but also as to the requirements of other conditions, before any relief is granted to him against the defendant.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendant had no right to institute the proceedings and the initiation and continuation of proceedings was without probable cause and was malicious. I have already held that even these two ingredients are not proved in the present case. Even if these be assumed and have been proved, the remaining three ingredients have neither been pleaded nor proved. As such, the plaintiff could hardly bring the present suit for damages against the defendant and the net result is that the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages."
9.8 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in West Bengal State Electricity Board v.
CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 15 of 28
-:: 16 ::- Date: 22.12.2023
Dilip Kumar Ray AIR 2007 Supreme Court 976 defined in malice and malicious prosecution in para 14, 15, 16 and 17 :
"14. Malice and Malicious Prosecution as stated in the Advance Law of Lexicon, 3rd Edition by P. Ramanatha Aiyar read as follows:
"Malice - Unlawful intent Will; intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm, Express or actual malice is ill will or spite towards the plaintiff or any indirect or improper motive in the defendant's mind at the time of the publication which is his sole or dominant motive for publishing the words complained of. This must he distinguished from legal malice or malice in law which means publication without law full excuse and does not depend upon the defendant's state of mind. The intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act. II. Reckless disregard of the law or of a person's legal rights. Ill will: wickedness of heart. This sense is most typical in non legal contexts".
"Malice means in law wrongful intention. It includes any intent which the law deems wrongful, and which therefore serves as a ground of liability. Any act done with such an intent is, in the language of the law, malicious, and this legal usage has etymology in its favour. The Latin malitia means badness, physical or moral - wickedness in disposition or in conduct - not specifically or exclusively ill-will or malevolence; hence the malice of English law, including all forms of evil purpose, design, intent, or motive. But intent is of two kinds, being either immediate or ulterior, the ulterior intent being commonly distinguished as the motive. The term malice is applied in law to both these forms of intent, and the result is a somewhat puzzling ambiguity which requires careful notice.
When we say that an act is done maliciously, we mean one of the two distinct things. We mean either that it is done intentionally, or that it is done with some wrongful motive."
"Malice in the legal sense imports (I) the absence of all elements of justification, excuse or recognized mitigation, and (2) the presence of either (a) an actual intent to cause the particular harm which is produced or harm of the same general nature, or (b) the wanton and wilful doing of an act with awareness of a plain and strong likelihood that such harm may result. The Model Penal Code does not use 'malice' because those who formulated the Code had a blind prejudice against the word. This is very regrettable because it represents a useful concept despite some unfortunate language employed at times in the effort to express it."
"Malice" in the legal acceptance of the word is not confined to personal spite against individuals but consists in a conscious violation CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 16 of 28
-:: 17 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 of the law to the prejudice of another. In its legal sense it means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse. 'Malice", in its legal sense, does not necessarily signily ill- will towards a particular individual, but denotes that condition of mind which is manifested by the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse. Therefore, the law implies malice where one deliberately injures another in an unlawful manner. Malice means an indirect wrong motive.
'Malice' in its legal sense means, malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonable or probable cause."
Malice, in ordinary common parlance, means ill-wiIl against a person and in legal sense, a wrongful act done intentionally, without just cause or reason. It is a question of motive, intention or state of mind and may be defined as any corrupt or wrong motive or personal spite or ill will.
'Malice' in common law or acceptance means ill-will against a person, but in legal sense it means a wrongful act alone intentionally without just cause or excuse.
It signifies an intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse or an action determined by an improper motive.
"MALICE", in common acceptation, means, ill will against a person; but in its legal sense, it means, a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse"
Malice in its common acceptation, is a term involving stint intent of the mind and heart, including the will; and has been said to mean a bad mind; ill-will against a person; a wicked or evil state of the mind towards another; an evil intent or wish or design to vex or annoy another; a wilful intent to do a wrongful act; a wish to vex, annoy or injure another person or as intent to do a wrongful act; a condition of the mind which shows a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief.
"MALICE" means wickedness of purpose, or a spiteful or malevolent design against another; a purpose to injure another; a design of doing mischief, or any evil design or inclination to do a bad thing, or a reckless disregard to the rights of others, or absence or legal excuse, or any other motive than that of bringing a party to justice."
"The meaning of the term malice in English law, his been a question of much difficulty and controversy; and those who made through the many disquisitions on the subjects in text- books and judicial opinions are almost tempted to the conclusion that the meaning varies almost CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 17 of 28
-:: 18 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 infinitely, and that the only sense which the term can safely be predicated not to have in ant given legal context is that which it has in popular language, viz., spite or ill-will. It certainly has different meanings with respect to responsibility for civil wrongs and responsibility for crime; and even with respect to crime it has a different sense according as it is used with reference to murder, libel, or the capacity of an infant to commit crime, expressed by the rule malitia supplet act item." (Ency. of the Laws of England). Ordinarily, the absence of reasonable and probable cause in instituting a proceeding which terminates in favour of the plaintiff, would give rise to the inference of malice.
MALICE has been said to mean any wrong or indirect motive but a prosecution is not malicious merely because it is inspired by anger. However, wrong- headed a prosecutor may be, if he honestly thinks that the accused has been guilty of a criminal offence he cannot be initiator of a malicious prosecution. MALICE means the presence of some improper and wrongful motive - that is to say an intend to use the legal process in question for some other than its legally appointed and appropriate purpose. It 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.
MALICE in fact is malue animus indicating that action against a party was actuated by spite or ill will against him or by indirect or improper motives. Malice: hatred: aversion: antipathy: enmity:
Repugnance: ill-will: rancour: malevolence: Malignity: malignancy. Hatred is a very general term.
Hatred applies properly to persons. It seems not absolutely involuntary. It has its root in passion, and may be checked or stimulated and indulged. Aversion is strong dislike. Aversion is a habitual sentiment, and springs from the natural taste or temperament which repels its opposites, as an indolent man has an aversion to industry, or a humane one to cruelty. Antipathy is used of causeless dislike, or at least one of which the cause cannot be defined. It is found upon supposition or instinctive belief, often utterly gratuitous. Enmity is the state of persona! opposition, whether accompanied by strong personal dislike or not; as "a bitter enemy." Repugnance is characteristically employed of acts or courses of action, measures, pursuits, and the like. Ill-will is a settled bias of the disposition. It is very indefinite, and may be of any degree or strength. Rancour is a deep seated and lasting feeling of ill-will. It preys upon the very mind of the subject of it. While enmity may be generous and open, rancour is malignant and private. Malice is that enmity which can abide its opportunity of injuring its object, and pervert the truth or the right, or CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 18 of 28
-:: 19 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 go out of its way, or shape course of action, to compass its ends. "Malevolence commences with some idea or evil belonging to and connected with the object; and it settles into a permanent hatred of his person and of everything relative to him" - (Gogan) Malignity is cruel malevolence, or innate love of harm for the sake of doing it. It is malice the most energetic, inveterate, and sustained. Malice in fact. "Malice in fact" means express malice. MALICE IN FACT OR ACTUAL MALICE, relates to the actual state or condition of the mind of the person who did the act. Malice in fact is where the malice is not established by legal presumption or proof of certain facts, but is to be found from the evidence in the case. Malice in fact implies a desire or intention to injure, while malice in law is not necessarily inconsistent with an honest purpose. Malice in law. 'Malice in law" means implied malice. "MALICE IN LAW" simply means a depraved inclination on the part of a person to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by his injurious acts.
Malice in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonable or pr obable cause. S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India (AIR 1979 SC 49, 51). MALICIOUS. Done with malice or an evil design; wilful; indulging in malice, harboring ill-will, or enmity malevolent, malignant in heart; committed wantonly, wilfully, or without cause, or done not only wilfully and intentionally, but out of cruelty, hostility of revenge; done in wilful neglect of a known obligation. "MALICIOUS" means with a fixed hate, or done with evil intention or motive; not the result of sudden passion.
Malicious abuse of civil proceedings. In general, a person may utilize any form of legal process without any liability, save liability to pay the costs of proceedings if unsuccessful. But an action lies for initiating civil proceedings. Such as action, presentation of a bankruptcy or winding up petition, an unfounded claim to property, not only unsuccessfully but maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause and resulting in damage to the plaintiff. (Walker) Malicious abuse of legal process. A malicious abuse of legal process consists in the malicious misuse or misapplication of process to accomplish a purpose not warranted or commanded by order of Court - the malicious perversion of a regularly issued process, whereby an improper result is secured.
There is a distinction between a malicious use and a malicious abuse of legal process. An abuse is where the party employs it for some CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 19 of 28
-:: 20 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 unlawful object - not the purpose which it is intended by the law to effect; in other words, a perversion of it.
Malicious abuse of process. Wilfully misapplying Court process to obtain object not intended by law. The wilful misuse or misapplication of process to accomplish a purpose not warranted or commanded by the writ. An action for malicious abuse of process lies in the following cases, A malicious petition or proceeding to adjudicate a person an insolvent, to declare a person lunatic or to wind up a c ompany, to make action against legal practitioner under the Legal Practitioners Act, maliciously procuring arrest or attachment in execution of a decree or before judgment, order or injunction or appointment of receiver, arrest of a ship, search of the plaintiff's premises, arrest of a person by police.
Malicious abuse of process of Court Malicious act Bouvier defined a malicious act as "a wrongful act, intentionally done, without cause or excuse."
A malicious act is one committed in a state of mind which shows a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischiefa wrongful act intentionally done, without legal justification or excuse. 'A malicious act is an act characterized by a preexisting or an accompanying malicious state of mind.
Malicious Prosecution Malice. 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 hod 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.
OTHER DEFINITIONS OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION".
"A judicial proceeding instituted by one person against another, from wrongful or improper motive and without probable cause to sustain it."
CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 20 of 28
-:: 21 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 "A prosecution begun in malice, without probable cause to believe that it can succeed and which finally ends in failure."
"A prosecution instituted wilfully and purposely, to gain some advantage to the prosecutor or thorough mere wantonness or carelessness, if it be at the same time wrong and unlawful within the knowledge of the actor, and without probable cause."
"A prosecution on some charge of crime which is wilful, wanton, or reckless, or against the prosecutor's sense of duty and right, or for ends he knows or is bound to know are wrong and against the dictates of public policy."
The term "malicious prosecution" imports a causeless as well as an ill-intended prosecution. 'MALICIOUS PROSECUTION" is a prosecution on some charge of crime which is wilful, wanton, or reckless, or against the prosecutor's sense of duty and right, or for ends he knows or its bound to know are wrong and against the dictates of public policy. In malicious prosecution there are two essential elements, namely, that no probable cause existed for instituting the prosecution or suit complained of, and that such prosecution or suit terminated in some way favorably to the defendant therein.
1. The institution of a criminal or civil proceeding for an improper purpose and without probable cause. 2. The cause of action resulting from the institution of such a proceeding. Once a wrongful prosecution has ended in the defendant's favor, lie or she may sue for tort damages - Also termed (in the context of civil proceedings) malicious use of process. (Black, 7th Edn., 1999) "The distinction between an action for malicious prosecution and an action for abuse of process is that a malicious prosecution consists in maliciously causing process to be issued, whereas an abuse of process is the employment of legal process for some purpose other than that which it was intended by the law to effect - the improper use of a regularly issued process. For instance, the initiation of vexatious civil proceedings known to be groundless is not abuse of process, but is governed by substantially the same rules as the malicious prosecution of criminal proceedings." 52 Am. Jur. 2d Malicious Prosecution S. 2, at 187 (1970).
The term 'malice,' as used in the expression "malicious prosecution" is not to be considered in the sense of spite or hatred against an individual, but of malus animus, and as denoting that the party is actuated by improper and indirect motives. As a general rule of law, any person is entitled though not always bound to lay before a judicial officer information as to any criminal offence which he has reasonable and probable cause to believe has been committed, with a CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 21 of 28
-:: 22 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 view to ensuring the arrest, trial, and punishment of the offender. This principle is thus stated in Lightbody's case, 1882, 9 Rettie,
934. "When it comes to the knowledge of anybody that a crime has been committed a duty is laid on that person as a citizen of the country to state to the authorities what he knows respecting the commission of the crime, and if he states, only what he knows and honestly believes he cannot be subjected to an action of damages merely because it turns out that the person as to whom he has given the information is after all not guilty of the crime. In such cases to establish liability the pursuer must show that the informant acted from malice, i.e., 'not in discharge of his public duty but from an illegitimate motive, and must also prove that the statements were made or the information given without any reasonable grounds of belief, or other information given without probable cause; and Lord SHAND added (p. 940): "He has not only a duty but a right when the cause affects his own property."
Most criminal prosecutions are conducted by private citizens in the name of the Crown. This exercise of civic rights constitutes what with reference to the la of libel is termed a privileged occasion: but if the right is abused, the person injured thereby is, in certain events, entitled to a remedy. (See H. Stephen, Malicious Prosecution, 1888; Builen and Leake, Prec. P1., Clerk and Lindsell. Torts, Pollock, Torts; LQR. April 1898; Vin., Abr., tit. "Action on the Case" Ency. of the Laws of England.) "MALICIOUS PROSECUTION" means that the proceedings which are complained of were initiated from a malicious spirit, i.e, from an indirect and improper motive, and not in furtherance of justice. [10 CWN 253 (FB)] The performance of a duty imposed by law, such as the institution of a prosecution as a necessary condition precedent to a civil action, does not constitute "malice". (Abbott v. Refuge Assurance Co., (1962) 1 QB 432).
"Malicious prosecution" thus differs from wrongful arrest and detention, in that the onus of proving that the prosecutor did not act honestly or reasonably, lies on the person prosecuted." (per DIPLOCK U in Dailison v. Caffery, (1965) 1 QB 348)). (Stroud, 6th Edn., 2000).
15. 'Malice' means and implies spite or ill-will. Incidentally, be it noted that the expression "mala fide" is not meaningless jargon and it has its proper connotation. Malice or mala fides can only be appreciated from the records of the case in the facts of each case. There cannot possibly be any set guidelines in regard to the proof of mala fides. Mala fides, where it is alleged, depends upon its own facts and circumstances. (See Prabodh Sagar v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others. (2000) 5 SCC 630.
CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 22 of 28
-:: 23 ::- Date: 22.12.2023
16. The legal meaning of 'malice' is "ill will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action". This is sometimes described as "malice in fact". "Legal malice" or "malice in law" means "something done without lawful excuse". In other words, "it is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others". (See State of A.P. v. Govardhanlal Pitti (2003) 4 SCC 739).
17. The word "malice" in common acceptation means and implies "spite" or "ill will". One redeeming feature in the matter of attributing bias or malice is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill will. There must be cogent evidence available on record. In the case of Jones Bros. (Hunstanton) Ltd. v. Stevens (1955) 1 QB 275: (1954) 3 All ER 677 (CA), the Court of Appeal has reliance on the decision of Lumley v.
Gye (1853) 2 E&B 216: 22 L.JQB 463 as below: "For this purpose maliciously means no more than knowingly. This was distinctly laid down in Lumley v. Gye (1853) 2 E&B 216: 22 LJQB 463 where Crompton, J. said that it was clear law that a person who wrongfully and maliciously, or, which is the same thing, with notice, interrupts the relation of master and servant by harbouring and keeping the servant after he has quitted his master during his period of service, commits a wrongful act for which he is responsible in law. Malice in law means the doing of a wrongful act intentionally without just cause or excuse: Bromage v. Prosser (1825) 1 C&P 673: 4 B&C 247. 'Intentionally' refers to the doing of the act; it doe not mean that the defendant meant be spiteful, though sometimes, as for instance to rebut a plea of privilage in defamation, malice in fact has to be proved". (See State of Punjab v. U.K. Khann and others (2001) 2 SCC
330)."
9.9 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in R. K. Soni Vs. S. Singhara Singh, Suit 77/1987, decided on 21-08-1991 held in para 5 :
"5. ...... In order to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff was to prove only that he was prosecuted by the defendant and the prosecution ended in the plaintiff's favour and that defendant had acted without reasonable and probable cause and was actuated by malice in launching the criminal prosecution. From the evidence led by the plaintiff it is amply proved that the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant maliciously without any reasonable and probable cause and the prosecution ended in plaintiff's favour......"
CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 23 of 28
-:: 24 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 9.10 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vijendra Kumar versus Ved Prakash Gupta RSA No. 259/2005 & CM No. 12211-12212/2005, decided on 29-03-2007 relied upon West Bengal State Electricity Board (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. 2013 STPL(LE) 47178 SC held in para 11 :
"11. The dictionary meaning of word 'false' means that, which is in essence, incorrect, or purposefully untrue, deceitful etc. Thus, the word 'false', is used to cover only unlawful falsehood. It means something that is dishonestly, untrue and deceitful, and implies an intention to perpetrate some treachery or fraud. In jurisprudence, the word 'false' is used to characterise a wrongful or criminal act, doe intentionally and knowingly, with knowledge, actual or constructive. The word false may also be used in a wide or narrower sense. When used in its wider sense, it means something that is untrue whether or not stated intentionally or knowingly, but when used in its narrower sense, it may cover only such falsehoods, which are intentional. The question whether in a particular enactment, the word false is used in a restricted sense or a wider sense, depends upon the context in which is it used."
9.11 It further relied upon West Bengal State Electricity Board (supra). It was further held in para 17 :
"17. The word "vexatious" means 'harassment by the process of law', 'lacking justification' or with 'intention to harass'. It signifies an action not having sufficient grounds, and which therefor,e, only seeks to annoy the adversary.
17.1. The hallmark of a vexatious proceeding is that it has no basis in law (or at least no discernible basis); and that whatever the intention of the proceedings may be, its only effect is to subject the other party to inconvenience, harassment and expense, which is so great, that it is disproportionate to any gain likely to accrue to the claimant; and that it involves an abuse of process of the court. Such proceedings are different from those that involve ordinary and proper use of the process of the court."
9.12 After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings under FIR 588/2001 was CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 24 of 28
-:: 25 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 instituted and continued by the defendant against the plaintiff without any reasonable and probable cause. The judgment of the Ld. MM highlights the absence of reasonablility and probability of commission of crime by the plaintiff. The relevant extracts of the judgment dated 26.05.2014 of the Ld. MM is stated as under:-
"PW1 i.e. complainant Renu deposed in her examination in chief that initially for few months, the behavior of the accused was good towards her but thereafter, he became rude for not bringing sufficient dowry and he always compelled the complainant to bring money from the parents as he has suffered business loss. PW1 has not stated any specific day, date, time and month of the alleged business loss and demand of money. PW1 further stated that in the month of June/ July, 1997, accused set her room on fire when she was sleeping alone. Perusal of the record reveals that there is no document on record to support this contention of the complainant. PW1 further stated that accused was in the habit of beating her and her son to remove his frustration of business problem. Perusal of the record further reveals that there is not even a single MLC on record to prove the alleged beatings. PW1 further stated that in the month of June / July, 1999 her husband tried to put her face on the gas-stove and she made a call to 100 no. and she had received severe beatings at the hands of the accused on said date. Again there is no MLC on record and as per the further deposition, the said matter was compromised. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and in her cross- examination, she categorically admitted that she was shifted to the flat of Overseas Apartments, Sector -09, Rohini in the month of October, 1999. She further deposed that she will not leave the present flat even if she was provided with an alternate accommodation by the accused. This categorical statement of the complainant reflects that she is adamant to reside in said flat which corroborates the defence of accused that the motive of filing the present FIR is only to get the flat in question transferred in the name of the complainant. Furthermore, she also admitted in her cross-examination dated 17.09.2011 that she filed a suit for injunction against the accused to not to dispossess the complainant from the said flat and on the very first date of hearing, accused gave the statement that he will not dispossess the complainant from the said flat. By no stretch of imagination, it can be believed that the accused who is bent upon to cause physical and mental cruelties to the complainant for the sake of dowry as per the allegations of the complainant, will so easily allow the complainant to reside in the flat purchase by the accused CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 25 of 28
-:: 26 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 and will give the statement in the court on the very first date of hearing in favour of the complainant, instead of harassing her by delaying the case. Complainant herself also admitted in her cross- examination that it is correct that accused has not visited the flat thereafter which shows that complainant alone is residing in the flat of the accused and the accused himself is out of that house. It is incredible that complainant who is being tortured to a great extent by the accused as alleged is living in the property of the accused and the accused who is so cruel as alleged by complainant is out of his own house. If the allegations of cruelty and harassment are taken to be true than why the accused is not residing in his own flat and making the life of the complainant miserable goes unexplained. PW1 complainant has also stated that her husband gave various beatings to her father and mother on the occasion of Grah Parvesh and accused also gave beatings to the complainant. However, again not even a single MLC has been placed on record to prove the allegations of beatings. PW1 further deposed that she wrote some letters to her parents with respect to dowry demand and cruelty caused by the accused which were marked as Mark-A, B, C and D but the perusal of the letter reveals that it contains no stamp and no covering letter and furthermore, letter is related to the date 04.05.1999 and on the same date, complainant was in the company of her parents only. This again shows that the said letters were false and fabricated and filed on record to create evidence only. PW1 has alleged merciless beatings caused to her by the accused on various occasions, however, she has not placed on record even a single MLC and she categorically deposed in her cross-examination dated 28.05.2011 that she never got medically examined after any of the beatings. Court is not inclined to accept this contention of the complainant that a person does not require medical treatment after getting merciless beatings as alleged by the complainant. She further stated that on 4-5 incidents police officials visited her house and at that time also, she was not medically examined by the police officials. When the matter is so much serious that police officials were called then it is understood that if merciless beatings has been done, the complainant would have been examined by the doctors. It is not acceptable that cruelty was committed to such an extent that police officials were called but despite such cruelty and merciless beatings no MLC was ever prepared either by the police officials or by the complainant. This gives an inference that no beatings ever took place and no medical treatment had ever been taken for the same. PW1 further deposed that amount in the dowry list is mentioned as Rs. 85,000/- and deposed in the court Rs. 80,000/-. By such calculation, she has admitted that she has given contradictory statements. She further deposed that she do not remember the exact date when the CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 26 of 28
-:: 27 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 said amount was demanded by her husband. She further deposed that it is correct that she told the police that during first 08-10 months of marriage everything was normal. She has mentioned about an incident of fire in the month of June / July but she has not stated the exact date of incident. She admitted that she has not told about the police about the harassment caused to her at the time of Diwali and she further admitted that at the time of marriage, financial condition of accused and his family was better than the family of complainant. She admitted that she never worked for the earnings till date either before or after marriage. This gives an inference that she was maintained by her husband only. Furthermore, the fact that she is living in the house purchased by the accused cannot be ignored and this fact clearly proves that complainant was maintained by the accused. She admitted in the cross-examination that complainant and accused used to fight regularly. In view of the aforesaid appreciation of evidence, it is clear that allegations of the complainant qua dowry demand and harassment is not supported by any of the documents and she has categorically failed to prove the allegations levelled by her against the accused."
9.13 On perusal of the above judgment, it is clear that the defendant has misused the state machinery to satisfy her own greed, improper and collateral purpose. The conduct of the defendant is malicious as she has taken different stands before different corums. In the state case stemming out of FIR no. 588/01, during her cross-examination, she has stated that she had never worked before or after marriage. However, in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C (Ex. PW1/3), she has stated that she was actively involved in gainful employment for the past many years since 2010. This clearly reflects upon the opportunistic and malicious attitude of the defendant towards the plaintiff. This is a classic case, whereby the state machinery was put to motion by invoking Section 498A/406/34 IPC without any basis as a tool of harassment of plaintiff. The defendant had made a mockery of the entire justice system to safeguard her personal interest and in the process have harassed / tortured the plaintiff and his entire family. The CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 27 of 28
-:: 28 ::- Date: 22.12.2023 plaintiff on account of criminal litigation must have suffered loss of reputation and goodwill apart from the expenses incurred by him in defending himself in the criminal case. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
9.14 RELIEF The plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove how much actual expenses he had incurred neither has he placed on record the loss of goodwill caused to him. Be that as it may be, this court takes judicial notice of the fact that the plaintiff had suffered harassment at the hands of the defendant for 16 long years and therefore, this court is inclined to grant as under:-
Sr. No. RELIEFS AMOUNT
1. Loss of reputation and goodwill suffered by plaintiff Rs. 30,000/-
2. Damages and compensation for harassment, torture, Rs. 50,000/-
mental agony
3. Legal Expenses for defending criminal case registered Rs. 75,000/-
by defendant vide FIR No. 588/01 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in the abovesaid terms. Let cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signedFile be consigned to record room. SHIVALI by SHIVALI BANSAL Announced in open BANSAL Date: 2023.12.22 17:23:16 +0530 Court on 22.12.2023 Shivali Bansal Additional District Judge-03 North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi CS No. 810/2017 Arun Goel Vs. Renu Goel Page: 28 of 28