Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harcharan Singh vs Punjab State Coop. Bank Limited And Ors on 9 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
RSA-3209-2019 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116
RSA-3209-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : 16.07.2025
Pronounced on : 09.10.2025
Harcharan Singh ...... Appellant
versus
Punjab State Coop. Bank Limited and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Devinder Kaushal, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
CM-8598-C-2019 This is an application for condonation of delay of 01 day in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 01 day in filing the appeal stands condoned.
Main case
1. Plaintiff is in second appeal.
2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking recovery of Rs.10 lacs as damages alleging malicious prosecution at the hands of defendants.
3. Plaintiff who was employed with defendants and was posted as Branch Manager of the Bank in Sector 47, Chandigarh was named as accused in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.176 dated 30.08.1999 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The trial culminated in the order of acquittal.
The plaintiff remained in judicial custody from 07.02.2000 to 1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 14:40:30 ::: RSA-3209-2019 (O&M) 05.05.2000. The plaintiff claimed that the FIR was result of inimical attitude of defendants against him. Plaintiff claims that he was due for promotion when he was falsely implicated in the criminal case. Apart from losing his career, he lost his mother and suffered huge financial, personal and reputational loss. He accordingly sought Rs.10 lacs as damages.
4. Suit was contested by the defendants. As per defendant No.1, plaintiff during his term as Branch Manager, illegally advanced vehicle loan, consumer loans, cash credit limits and term loans, which led to huge financial loss to the bank. Plaintiff was served chargesheet dated 12.01.2000 and 13.01.2000. He was found guilty by inquiry officer. FIR No.176 was registered against the plaintiff. False implication alleged by the plaintiff was denied by defendant No.1.
Defendants No.2 to 6 filed written statements on the lines of the defence pleaded by defendant No.1.
5. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of First Instance framing following issues:-
"1. Whether due to act and conduct of the defendants, service of plaintiff was dismissed and he suffered loss of reputation? OPP
2. Whether on account of malicious prosecution, mental agony and harassment, the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 10.00 lacs? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
4. Whether the defendants being public servants are not liable for payment of damages as they have acted in good faith and in discharge of their duties? OPD
5. Relief."
2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 14:40:31 ::: RSA-3209-2019 (O&M)
6. On issue No.1, 2 and 4, the Court found that mere acquittal of the plaintiff in criminal case is not sufficient to presume that he was maliciously prosecuted. In a suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution, plaintiff is required to prove that the proceedings were initiated without any reasonable or probable cause with an intent to cause wrong to the plaintiff. The whole basis of the claim of the plaintiff is that false FIR was registered on the basis of affidavit of one Ms. Payal Bogra and that of Ms. Vaneeta Behal. None of them were however summoned as witness or arraigned as defendants in the suit.
7. The Court found that apart from oral evidence, plaintiff failed to prove malice on part of the defendants and thus was not entitled for damages. The Court of the First Instance accordingly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
8. The aforesaid findings stand affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.
9. Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. He submits that defendant No.5 at the instance of respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 6 struck a deal with two bank customers, i.e. Ms. Vaneeta Behal and Ms. Payal Bogra and procured their affidavits on stamp papers. It is on the basis of those two affidavits that the prosecution was initiated against the appellant with an intent to prosecute him maliciously. The plaintiff being Branch Manager was within his right and authority to sanction the loans to the customers on completion of necessary formalities, yet the plaintiff was wrongly prosecuted. He submits that Courts below erred in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. Reliance is being placed upon Hardeep Singh vs. 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 14:40:31 ::: RSA-3209-2019 (O&M) State of Madhya Pradesh 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 165, to submit that handcuffing without jurisdiction adversely effects the dignity of the human being and the plaintiff after acquittal was entitled for compensation. Further reliance is being placed upon ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of S. Nambi Narayanan vs. Siby Mathews & Ors. reported as 2019(1) CCC 284.
10. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
11. The law with respect to malicious prosecution in the cases involving employer-employee relationship has been elaborately dealt with by Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Dilip Kumar Ray reported as 2007(14) SCC 568 observing as under:-
"30. 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.
31. Malicious abuse of civil proceedings. In general, a person may utilise 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)
32. 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 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 14:40:31 ::: RSA-3209-2019 (O&M) warranted or commanded by order of Court - the malicious perversion of a regularly issued process, whereby an improper result is secured.
33. 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 unlawful object - not the purpose which it is intended by the law to effect; in other words, a perversion of it.
34. 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 company, 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 mischief - a wrongful act intentionally done, without legal justification or excuse.
'A malicious act is an act characterised by a preexisting or an accompanying malicious state of mind.
35. 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 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 14:40:31 ::: RSA-3209-2019 (O&M) 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".
36. "A judicial proceeding instituted by one person against another, from wrongful or improper motive and without probable cause to sustain it."
"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.
37. 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 6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 14:40:31 ::: RSA-3209-2019 (O&M) 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 Section 2, at 187 (1970).
38. 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.
39. 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 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 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 14:40:31 ::: RSA-3209-2019 (O&M) 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."
40. 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.)
41. "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)]
42. 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).
43. "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).
44. '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.
45. 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 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 14:40:31 ::: RSA-3209-2019 (O&M) 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(1) RCR (Rent) 445 (SC) : (2003)4 SCC 739).
46. 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 England Reporter 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).
47. Malice in law. "Malice in law" is however, quite different. Viscount Haldane described it in Shearer Shields, (1914) AC 808 as : "A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with the innocent mind : he is taken to know the law, and he must act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far the state of mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly, and in that sense innocently". 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 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 14:40:31 ::: RSA-3209-2019 (O&M) excuse, or fro want of reasonable or probable cause. (See S.R. Venkatarcunan v. Union of India, (1979)2 SCC 491)
48. Malice-per common law. "Malice" in common law or acceptance means ill will against a person, but in legal sense means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse. (See Chairman and M.D., B.P.L. Ltd v. S.P. Gururaja and others, JT 2003 (Suppl. 2) SC 515 and Chairman and MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.F. Gururaja and others, (2003)8 SCC 567).
49. While it is true that legitimate indignation does not fall within the ambit of malicious act, in almost all legal inquiries, intention, as distinguished from motive is the all important factor. In common parlance, a malicious act has been equated with intentional act without just cause or excuse. (See Jones Bros. (Hunstanton) v. Stevans, (1955)1 QB 275 : (1954)3 All England Reporter 677 (CA)). Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant and others, 2001(1) SCT 607 (SC) : (2001)1 SCC 182)."
12. In the present case, the bedrock of the claim of the plaintiff is false affidavits claimed to have been procured by respondent-
defendants against plaintiff from Ms. Vaneeta Behal and Ms. Payal Bogra. In order to prove his case, plaintiff was required to prove that defendants persuaded Ms. Vaneeta Behal and Ms. Payal Bogra to tender false affidavits against the plaintiff.
13. Neither of the aforesaid two customers of the bank was examined as witness, leave apart impleading them as one of the defendants in the present suit.
14. In view thereof, this Court finds that the Courts below rightly dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the affidavits on the basis of which he was prosecuted, were procured by the defendants with an intent to prosecute and with malice against the plaintiff.
10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 14:40:31 ::: RSA-3209-2019 (O&M)
15. Finding no merits in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
09.10.2025
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 14:40:31 :::