Bangalore District Court
Dr Girish Kumar Naidu K vs Ravi Kumar T C on 15 October, 2025
KABC010095382025
Govt. of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI,
B.A. LL.B.(Spl)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.No.2654/2025
PLAINTIFF/S : Dr.K.Girish Kumar Naidu,
No.180/E, 1st Block, 4th Cross,
Ayappa Nagar, K.R.Puram,
Bengaluru - 560 036.
[By Sri.K.K.R., Advocate]
/Vs/
DEFENDANT/S 1 T.C.Ravi Kumar
The Executive Engineer,
Mahadevapura division, Mahadevapura
zone, Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara
Palike, Commercial Complex, RHB
Colony,
Whitefield Main Road,
Opposite Phoenix Mall,
Bengaluru - 560 048.
(Exparte)
2
O.S.No.2654/2025
Date of Institution of the suit : 08.04.2025
Nature of the Suit : Damages / Compensation
Date of commencement of : 09.07.2025
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 13.10.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
0 6 5
(GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI)
VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant seeking the relief of damages.
2. It is averred in the plaint that,Plaintiff is dedicated social worker actively engaged in multifaceted social causes including protection of Government land which is crucial for well being of future generations. The plaintiff is known for his unwavering commitment to uphold rule of law and ensuring accountability in governance. He has consistently raised 3 O.S.No.2654/2025 concerns regarding illegal Governmental actions, anomalies in executive decisions, environmental violations and dereliction of duty by public officials. He has exposed instances of corruption and administrative lapses thereby inviting the displeasure of certain executives who perceive his activism as inconvenient and unpalatable.
3. In furtherance of his commitment to public interest, he lodged complaint before Karnataka Lokayukta against the defendant a public official along with his subordinate Assistant Executive Engineer alleging wilful dereliction of duty and complaint was premised on the failure of defendant and his subordinate to implement directives issued by Joint Director BBMP dated 17.11.2023 concerning removal of unauthorized construction in R.S.No.47 Sadaramangala village Anugraha layout. Despite of repeated follow ups and explicit directions from Joint Director of BBMP, defendant wilfully neglected to implement said order necessitating the plaintiff to escalate the matter before Karnataka Lokayukta by filing complaint bearing No. COMPLAINT/UPLOKA/BCD- 4
O.S.No.2654/2025 3750/2024/ARLO-1 dated 10.07.2024. Plaintiff got issued notice in the said case wherein Lokayukta has sought for any objections to the reply statement by opposite party and plaintiff has sent reply and defendant has submit explanation with deliberate intent to malign the reputation of plaintiff fabricated defamatory statements
4. The defendant is an executive engineer. But in the explanation submitted by him with deliberate intent to malign the reputation of plaintiff fabricated false and defamatory statements in his official response dated 04.10.2024. He has falsely alleged that plaintiff is a habitual complainant who withdraws complaints for personal gain and thereby attempting to create public contempt and disrepute against the plaintiff. In a calculated effort to lend credibility to baseless allegations by the defendant, he cited two instances where the plaintiff had withdrawn complaints. The impugned statements, apart from being defamatory, were made with deliberate intent to tarnish the image of the plaintiff and diminish his standing in the society and obstruct his growing 5 O.S.No.2654/2025 political career. The defendant was well aware of facts denoting the circumstances under which plaintiff withdrew his complaints, but with malafide intention, defendant deliberately omitted material facts thereby misrepresenting the true nature of events to malign the integrity of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was compelled to withdraw the complaint under duress due to gross misconduct by the Assistant Executive Engineer, who in violation of legal provisions disclosed plaintiff's personal information including his residential address in notices issued to 3,900 apartment owners. This reckless disclosure incited large scale protest outside the residence of plaintiff, endangering his and his family's safety. Despite temporary police protection, the plaintiff continued to face threats and harassment and multiple FIRs were registered including FIR bearing Cr.No.318/2022, FIR bearing Cr.No.334/ 2022 in K.R.Puram police station. In the absence of systemic protection and due to persistent threats to his life and without any alternative, he had to withdraw the complaint. He continued his legal battle before the police before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 6 O.S.No.2654/2025 and Karnataka Lokayukta. On the basis of the complaint filed by the plaintiff, the BBMP officials conducted an on-site inspection and removed the encroachment measuring 32 quanta land on 27.05.2022 and FIR bearing Cr.No.214/2022 and 215/22 were registered. The builder produced relinquishment deed and necessary approvals from BBMP Chief Engineer which were duly verified by the Town Planning Authority and based on these legally sanctioned documents, the plaintiff in good faith and in adherence to the due process withdrew the complaint against M/s J Infrastructure regarding Survey No. 89.
5. The plaintiff is a distinguished social activist, public interest activist and president of Girish Kumar Charitable Trust. He holds the position of vice president in Aam Aadmi Political Party. As a dedicated crusader against corruption and illegal encroachment and unauthorised constructions, he has played pivotal role in exposing and addressing irregularities within the Government institutions. His relentless efforts in safeguarding public assets including 7 O.S.No.2654/2025 Government lands and Raja Kaluve have resulted in the recovery and preservation of properties valued at ₹8,000 crore. He actively perused the legal records against the bureaucratic misconduct and dereliction of duty by initiating proceedings before the Hon'ble Courts, Lokayukta and law enforcement agencies. His legal interventions have led to the demolition of 3,900 unauthorised flats constructed in violation of prevailing regulations as well as actions against corporate entities were engaged in unauthorised excavation of public infrastructure. He is an aspiring politician and dedicated social activist, who is actively engaged in social work. He is associated with Aam Aadmi Party and holds the position of Vice President of the State within it. He also contested the Karnataka State Assembly elections from Byatarayanapura Assembly Constituency. Through his relentless activism and political engagements, he has gained recognition for his unwavering commitment to upholding the Rule of law, preventing governmental misconduct and advocating for public welfare. He has issued legal notice to 8 O.S.No.2654/2025 the defendants on 26.01.2025 who have failed to respond to the legal notice for which, he is constrained to file this suit.
6. Though suit summons served upon the defendant, he has failed to appear and contest the suit and he is placed exparte. Plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked ExP-1 to 14 and closed his evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the evidence on record.
8. Points arise for my consideration are as under;
1) Whether plaintiff proves that, plaintiff being
dedicated social worker engaged in
multifaceted social causes including the protection of Government land and filed complaint before Karnataka Lokayukta bearing No. COMPLAINT/UPLOKA/BCD/3750/2024/AR LO-1 dated 10.07.2024 against the defendant along with his sub ordinate Assistant Executive Engineer alleging willful dereliction of duty and defendant willfully neglected to implement the directives of 9 O.S.No.2654/2025 Joint Commissioner, BBMP dated 17.11.2023 and defendant has submitted his explanation with deliberate intent to malign the reputation of plaintiff and made false defamatory statements in his objections and falsely alleged that, plaintiff is a habitual complainant who withdrew complaints for personal gain and attempted to create public contempt and disrepute against the plaintiff?
2) Whether plaintiff proves that, defendant has made impugned statements with deliberate intent to tarnish image of plaintiff and diminished his standing in the society and obstruct his growing political career and defendant has deliberately omitted material facts thereby misrepresenting true nature of events to malign the integrity of plaintiff?
3) Whether plaintiff proves that, he withdrew the complaint under duress due to gross misconduct of defendant who disclosed personal information and this reckless disclosure incited large scale protests outside residence of plaintiff endangering to his and his family life and he continued to face threats and harassment and multiple 10 O.S.No.2654/2025 FIRs were registered against him and without any alternative, he had to withdraw the complaint?
4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for reliefs prayed in the suit?
5) What order or decree?
9. Points arise for my consideration are as under:
Point No.1: In the "Negative"
Point No.2: In the "Negative"
Point No.3: In the "Negative"
Point No.4: In the "Negative"
Point No.5 : As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT Nos.1 to 4 :- According to the evidence of PW-1, he is a dedicated social worker actively involved in social causes including protection of government land and he is known for unwavering commitment to upholding the Rule of law and ensuring accountability in governance and consistently raised concerns regarding illegal governmental 11 O.S.No.2654/2025 actions, anomalies in executive decisions, environmental violations, dereliction of duty by public officials and he exposed the instances of corruption and administrative lapses thereby inviting the disclosure of certain executives. The documents and evidence of PW-1 also shows that, he lodged complaint before Karnataka Lokayukta against the defendant along with his subordinate Assistant Executive Engineer alleging willful dereliction of duty and on the failure of the defendant and his subordinate to implement the directives issued by the Joint Commissioner BBMP dated 17.11.2023 concerning the removal of unauthorised construction in Survey No. 47 of Sadaramangala Village, Anugraha Layout. According to his oral evidence, the defendant willfully neglected to implement the said order for which he was constrained to file the complaint bearing COMPLAINT/UPLOKA/BCD/3750/2024/ARLO-1 dated 10.07.2024 against the defendant along with his sub ordinate Assistant Executive Engineer. He has further deposed in his evidence that, Assistant Registrar Legal Opinion of Karnataka Lokayukta issued Notice dated 10.12.2024 directing the 12 O.S.No.2654/2025 defendant and Assistant Executive Engineer to submit their explanation and defendant with the malafide and deliberate intent to malign his reputation fabricated false and defamatory statements in his official response dated 04.10.2024 stating that Plaintiff is a habitual complainant who withdrew the complaints for personal gain and thereby attempting to create public contempt and disregard against him. He has further stated that, in a calculated effort to lend credibility to baseless allegations, the defendant cited two instances where plaintiff had withdrawn the complaints inspite of knowing extenuating circumstances under which said complaints were withdrawn and defendant deliberately omitted material facts thereby misrepresenting the true nature of events to malign integrity. He has given the reasons in Para No.6 of chief affidavit that for which reason, he was compelled to withdraw the complaint stating that due to gross misconduct by the Assistant Executive Engineer, who in violation of legal provisions disclosed his personal information including his residential address in notices to 3,900 apartment owners and this reckless disclosure incited large 13 O.S.No.2654/2025 scale protests outside his residence, endangering to him and his family and despite temporary police protection he continued to face the harassment and multiple FIRs bearing No. 318/2022 and 334/2022 registered in K.R.Puram Police Station.
11. He has orally deposed that, in the absence of systematic protection and due to persistent threats to his life and without any alternative, he was compelled to withdraw the complaint. But he has continued his legal battle before the Hon'ble High Court and Karnataka Lokayukta. He has further stated that, the allegations of the defendant are baseless and misleading and BBMP officials conducted an on-site inspection and removed encroachments amounting to 32 gunta land on 27.05.2022 and FIR Nos. 214/2024 and 215/2024 were registered. In his chief examination affidavit, he has further stated that, the Builder produced relinquishment deed and necessary approvals of the BBMP Chief Commissioner, which were duly verified by the Town Planning Authority, and on the basis of these legally 14 O.S.No.2654/2025 sanctioned documents and in adherence to the due process, he withdrew his complaint.
12. He has described himself as a distinguished social activist. Public Interest Activist, President of Girish Kumar Charitable Trust and vice president of Aam Aadmi political party and dedicated crusader against corruption, illegal encroachments and unauthorised constructions and played pivotal role in exposing and addressing systemic irregularities within the Government institutions, including the protection of Government lands and public assets and Raja Kaluve and the property worth ₹8,000 crores has been recovered.
13. He has produced copy of notice issued by Assistant Registrar Legal Opinion -1 Karnataka Lokayukta Bangalore in which copy of objections filed by respondent in that case sent to plaintiff and reply was called from him. He has also produced statement of objections filed by the respondent to the complaint filed by plaintiff and denied the contents of complaint and stated that, complainant is habitual complainant and he used to send requests to close the cases 15 O.S.No.2654/2025 in cases he was benefited. He has produced ExP-3 which is containing the service details of respondent. He has produced office copy of Legal Notice which is marked as ExP-4 and postal receipt and postal track consignment records which are marked as ExP-5. He has produced reply given by him before Karnataka Lokayukta for the statement of objections filed by the respondent and also produced acknowledgement as per ExP-10.
14. He has produced true copy of FIR registered in K.R.Puram Police Station Crime No. 318/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 506 R/W.Section 34 of IPC filed by Sri Prakash M. Dhareshwar against Naresh K., Subhashini Pathi, Ashok.M, Yattapu Bhaskar, Prathap Kumar Rupal, Srinivas Reddy, Muniratnam and Prakash M.Dhareshwar. In the complaint, it is alleged that, on 28.02.2022, in the land bearing Survey No. 40 of Alpa Garden in Kodigehalli Village, Ward No.54 of K.R.Puram, within the limits of BBMP, some constructions have been made and additional two floor constructions are made without leaving 16 O.S.No.2654/2025 set back by violating Section 248 (1)(2)(3) of the Byelaws and neglected the notice issued and the construction work is being in progress. He has also proceeded to copy of another complaint filed to K.R.Puram Police Station in which case in Crime No. 334/2022 registered under Sections 341, 504, 506, 143 and 149 of IPC on the basis of complaint filed by Sri. Santhoshkumar against 10 unknown persons. In the complaint, it is alleged that, since 3 months, complainant is working as a gunman under Girish Kumar Naidu in Ayyappa Nagar and he is residing in the ground floor in the house of Girish Kumar Naidu and whenever Girish Kumar Naidu used to go for walking to Aplha Garden, he found that, 5 builders illegally constructed apartment in the land bearing Survey Nos.40 and 41 belonging to the Government and on the direction of Girish Kumar Naidu, he used to go to the Alpha garden by walk and used to take the photographs of apartment and used to send them to Girish Kumar Naidu. It is further stated in the complaint that, on 22.08.2022 at about 10:00 a.m., when he was going by walk besides the road of Alpha garden, 10 unknown persons stopped his 17 O.S.No.2654/2025 vehicle and plucked away the key of motorcycle and abused him in filthy language and threatened to kill and they also plucked his mobile phone and told to him to open the mobile phone and he shouted loudly that, he will not open lock of mobile phone, they left key of the motorcycle and mobile phone and went away and he filed the complaint. He has also produced true copy of another complaint and FIR registered in K.R.Puram Police Station in which Crime No.214/2022, for the offences punishable under Section 341,323,506 R/W Section 34 of IPC, on the basis of complaint filed by Anup Kumar S/o Late Bashi Reddy against the plaintiff Girish Kumar Naidu stating that, he is having ancestral landed properties in Survey No.75/1, 92/6 and 89/1 in Hoodi village and in between said properties, there is one government Rajakaluve and he is undertaking construction of a building in his land and on 21.06.2022 in the afternoon, the officers of BBMP came to the spot and along with him, his friend Venu Gopal Reddy, Narayanaswamy and Muniswamy were present and at about 03.30 p.m. 3-4 persons came and told him to stop the construction work, for which he told that, he is 18 O.S.No.2654/2025 undertaking construction in his land and BBMP officers came for spot inspection and he questioned to the plaintiff that, why he is giving trouble, for which he told that it is his work to stop the construction near the Rajakaluve and his name is Girish Kumar Naidu and plaintiff assaulted him by hands and when his friend Narayanswamy came to his rescue, he was also assaulted by plaintiff and Muniswamy was pushed away by plaintiff and also threatened to their lives. It is also alleged in the complaint that, one gunman came along with Girish Kumar Naidu, who also threatened to shoot and throw them in the Rajakaluve. He has also produced true copy of FIR registered by him in K.R.Puram Police Station Crime No.215/2022 against Anup Reddy, Venu Gopal Reddy, Narayanswamy, Gangadhar, Muniswamy, Pillappa H.S.and others and FIR has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 506, 143 and 149 R/W.S.149 of IPC. In the complaint, he has stated that on 21.06.2022 in Ward No.54, Anoop Reddy and his followers encroached Government Land and Rajakaluve and making construction of the building for which he has filed complaint to BBMP and 19 O.S.No.2654/2025 other offices in order to protect government land and when he went and questioned them, Anup Reddy and his followers threatened to his life for which criminal case has been registered.
15. At this stage, it is just and proper to appreciate legal principles on malicious prosecution.
Malicious prosecution is an institution with malice against another of unsuccessful criminal or bankruptcy without a reasonable cause. It has two competing principles, namely the freedom that every person should have in bringing criminals to justice and the need for restraining false accusations against innocent persons.
2. Following are the essential conditions that plaintiff has to prove in an action for malicious prosecution:
(i) he was prosecuted by the defendant,
(ii) the proceedings complained of terminated in favour of the plaintiff if from their nature they were capable of so terminating, 20 O.S.No.2654/2025
(iii) the prosecution was instituted against him without any reasonable or probable cause,
(iv) the prosecution was instituted with malicious intention, and
(v) he has suffered damage to his reputation.
The word "Malice" in common acception means and implies "Spite" or "ill-will". 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 wilfully 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".
The following are essential elements for prosecution on the ground of malicious prosecution.
21
O.S.No.2654/2025 (1) The plaintiff has been prosecuted (2) The defendant has prosecuted the plaintiff. Legal proceedings have thus started with the judicial authority.
Proceedings may involve both types of prosecution i.e., criminal as well as civil. On this aspect that, at what stage, the proceedings start with the illustration of case reported in Bolandanda Premayya v. Ayaradara, AIR 1966 Kant 13.--
Defendant made a complaint with the police that plaintiff has committed a theft in his house. Police called both i.e., plaintiff as well as defendant in the police station and recorded their statements. The sub-inspector then made a search in plaintiff's house. But the police found the complaint to be false. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the defendant in the civil court for malicious prosecution. The court rejected this plea on this ground that mere filing of complaint with the police doesn't amount to prosecution. It starts only, when some judicial authority is set in motion as a consequence of such complaint. The suit failed. 22
O.S.No.2654/2025 So, at what stage, the prosecution commences before the judicial authority, there are two views on this point:
(a) the prosecution starts as soon as the complaint is made or charge is laid before the judicial authority. In Balbhaddar Singh v. Badri Shah, AIR 1926 PC 46, it was observed that the charge should have been acted upon and process issued by the judicial authority.
(b) the prosecution commences not at the stage when the complaint is made or charge is laid before the judicial authority, but at the stage when some process has been issued by such authority for the plaintiff to appear.
16. In another decision of Mohd. Amin v. Jogender Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1947 PC 108, the plaintiff agreed to sell certain property to defendant who was going to form a company, but later on he backtracked to do so. On a complaint from defendant, the Magistrate after examining it on oath, held an inquiry in the open court under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The plaintiff was accordingly summoned and he appeared with his lawyer. Thereafter, the 23 O.S.No.2654/2025 Magistrate dismissed the complaint as a result of preliminary enquiry. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant for damages for malicious prosecution. The Privy Council held--
"the action for damages for malicious prosecution is part of the common law of England, administered by the High Court at Calcutta. The foundation of the action lies in abuse of process of the court by wrongfully setting the law in motion and it is designed to discourage the perversion of the machinery of justice for an improper purpose."
After stating the basis for the tort of malicious prosecution, Sir John Beaumont, J; of the Privy Council laid down the principle of determining the stage at which prosecution commences. He said--
"To find an action for damages for malicious prosecution based upon criminal proceedings, the test is not whether the criminal proceedings may be correctly described as prosecution, the test is 24 O.S.No.2654/2025 whether such proceedings have reached a stage at which damage to the plaintiff results. In this case the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, examined the complainant on the oath, held an enquiry in open court under section 202 which the plaintiff attended, and, at which the learned judge had found he incurred costs in defending himself. The plaint alleged the institution of criminal proceedings of a character necessarily involving damage to reputation and gave particulars of special damage alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff. Their Lordships think that action was well founded, and on the findings at the trial the plaintiff is entitled to judgment."
In criminal proceedings, malicious prosecution commences, when such proceedings have reached a stage at which damage to plaintiff results. The plaintiff has to prove that the prosecution against him was instituted by the defendant. 25
O.S.No.2654/2025 Prosecutor is a person who is actively instrumental in putting the law in force: Dandy v. Beardsley, (1880) 43 LT 603.
If a person does not file a complaint himself but through the instrumentality of an agent or counsel, he will be termed as a prosecutor. A private person at whose instance and report the prosecution is launched by the police, is a prosecutor.
A person is not a prosecutor when the defendant has just given an account of honest suspicion about the plaintiff to the police and the police without any further enquiry started a case against the plaintiff. As discussed above, the plaintiff has to prove that he was prosecuted by the defendant and if this prosecution results in conviction of the plaintiff then no suit would lie against the defendant. A cause of action arises if the prosecution fails to convict the plaintiff.
26
O.S.No.2654/2025 But in this case, only FIRs have been registered and plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that, in the said criminal cases, investigation has been conducted and charge sheet has been filed and trial was held and it was proved that, false allegations are made in the complaint and he has been falsely prosecuted without any justifiable grounds. Except FIRs and complaint, statement of objections and reply to the statement of objections, there are no other materials on record to show that, legal proceedings came to logical end to establish that, he was wrongly prosecuted without any materials. Mere production of FIRs is not sufficient to draw any inference or come to any just and proper conclusion about malicious prosecution. Hawkins J. in Hicks v. Faulkner, (1878) 8 QBD 167, has defined 'reasonable and probable' as--
"an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based upon a full conviction, founded upon 27 O.S.No.2654/2025 reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which assuming them to be true, would reasonably 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".
So, it may also be said that 'reasonable and probable cause' means honest belief in the guilt of accused based upon reasonable grounds. In the case Jogendra v. Lingraj, Manu/OR/0036/1970 : AIR 1970 Ori 91 it is observed as under:
The question was that whether in every case plaintiff is required to prove that the defendant prosecuted him "in the absence of reasonable and probable cause."
The Hon'ble Orissa High Court made out difference by distinguishing 'acquittal on merits' and 'acquittal on benefits of doubts.' It is held that, in both the types of acquittals, 28 O.S.No.2654/2025 plaintiff has to prove defendant's lack of 'reasonable and probable cause' but where "the accusation against the plaintiff purports to be in respect of an offence which the defendant claimed to have seen him commit, and the trial ends in an acquittal on the merits, the presumption will be not only be that plaintiff was innocent, but also there was no reasonable and probable cause for the accusation".
There is one exception to this rule i.e., where the defendant claims to have seen the plaintiff committing the crime, and the trial ends in acquittal on merit. The presumption in such cases will be that there was no reasonable and probable cause for his prosecution. In such a case the plaintiff will not be required to prove that the defendant prosecuted him without reasonable and probable cause.
The plaintiff has again to prove that the defendant acted maliciously in prosecuting him. Malice means indirect and improper motive. In the case Jogendra v. Lingraj Manu/OR/0036/1970: AIR 1970 Ori 91: the Hon'ble High Court described 'malice' as--29
O.S.No.2654/2025 "As already stated, bad blood existed between defendant and members of the Brahmin Nijog. Therefore, when defendant found that some members of the Brahmin Nijog were responsible for committing certain acts in relation to his properties, it is not unlikely that he availed of the opportunity of implicating others even though they were not present and did not participate in any of the acts....... is in the circumstances indicative of improper and wrongful motive and the necessary inference is that it was malicious."
In Abdul Majid v. Harbansh Choube,MANU/UP/0034/1974: AIR 1974 All 129, the Police Station Officer, in a conspiracy hatched by two other defendants concocted a story that the plaintiff was involved in a dacoity and the 'hansauli' used in the dacoity was recovered from the house of plaintiff. The court acquitted the plaintiff on giving him the benefit of doubt. The plaintiff then brought the action against the defendants. The Court observed that the defendants adopted improper and wrongful motive to 30 O.S.No.2654/2025 prosecute the plaintiff on the basis of concocted story. The Court held defendants liable.
The plaintiff has to prove that he has suffered damage as a result of his prosecution. There are three types of damages--
(i) damage to man's reputation i.e., if person has been accused of scandalous matter;
(ii) damage to the person i.e., when the person is put in danger of losing his life, liberty or limb;
(iii) the damage to man's property i.e., where he is forced to spend money to defend himself of the crime of which he is prosecuted.
In Ram Lal v. Mahender Singh MANU/RH/03000/2007: AIR 2008 Raj 8, the plaintiff and his father had been implicated in an offence of murder and they were acquitted by the court. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed suit for malicious prosecution. It was held that merely because the plaintiffs came to be 31 O.S.No.2654/2025 acquitted or discharged by the criminal court as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt as is required in criminal law, it does not mean that such acquittal or discharge could necessarily boomerang upon the defendant as a case for malicious prosecution. The burden of proof squarely lied upon the plaintiffs to prove that the prosecution was malicious, malafide and done with an intention to harass and defame the plaintiffs. No such case was made out by the plaintiffs, much less proved. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any damages.
17. In the light of principles laid down in the said decisions and evidence on record, the plaintiff has only produced true copy of FIRs, complaint, statement of objections and reply, office copy of Legal Notice and in the said cases, there are no documents about investigation and charge sheet filed by the police and trial of cases and result of said cases either in acquittal or conviction. In the absence of any materials to that effect, I hold that, plaintiff has failed to prove about malicious 32 O.S.No.2654/2025 prosecution and his entitlement for the damages in the absence of cogent and consistent evidence. So I answer Point No.1 to 4 in the "Negative".
18. POINT NO.5:- For the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of plaintiff is hereby dismissed as devoid of merits.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 15th day of October, 2025) (GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.
AN NEXURE
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s P.W.1 : Dr.K.Girish Kumar Naidu
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff/s Ex.P.1 : Notice issued by Lokayuktha Bengaluru in complaint/UPLOK/BCD/3750/2024 33 O.S.No.2654/2025 Ex.P.2 : Objections submitted by BBMP to Lokayuktha Ex.P.3 : My job details submitted to Lokayuktha Ex.P.4 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.5 : Postal receipt Ex.P.6 : Track consignment record Ex.P.7 : Objections submitted by me to Lokayuktha dated 12-03-2024 Ex.P.8 : Objection submitted by BBMP to Lokayuktha Ex.P.9 : My job details submitted to Lokayuktha Ex.P.10 : Acknowledgment issued by Lokayuktha Ex.P.11 : True copy of FIR in K R Puram police station crime No.318/2022 Ex.P.12 : True copy of FIR in K R Puram police station crime No.334/2022 Ex.P.13 : True copy of FIR in K R Puram police station crime No.214/2022 Ex.P.14 : True copy of FIR in K R Puram police station crime No.215/2022
3. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant/s : - Nil -
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Defendant/s : - Nil -
VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.