Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yeshwantrao Rangani Kalar vs Nandram Govind Kalar on 22 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)MPLJ110
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J.
1. The defendant who could non-suit the plaintiff in the trial Court had to suffer a decree in the first appellate Court and being aggrieved by the decree for grant of damages, has preferred this second appeal under section 100, Civil Procedure Code. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 18-3-1987 on the following substantial questions of law :
"(1) Whether in the absence of reasonable and probable cause proved by the plaintiff/respondent, the decree for damages for malicious prosecution is justified?
(2) Whether in the absence of the reasons for quantum of damages, the award of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) is legal and justified?"
2. Facts in a narrow compass are that the parties are neighbours and separated by a lane. The defendant sought permission to cut branches of a mango tree, which was causing shadow on his roof. It was granted by the Additional Collector vide order dated 20-7-1973 in Revenue Case No. 64-A/62/1970/71. According to the plaintiff he was Panch of the Gram Panchayat and was cultivator also. According to him, the defendant had lodged a complaint against his wife and as the plaintiff gave evidence against the defendant, the defendant was bearing enmity with him and to take revenge, lodged a false complaint at Police Station, Lanji, on 17-8-1973 against him, and his aged mother for commission of offences under sections 294 and 506, First Part, Indian Penal Code, alleging that the defendant was abused in a public place and was threatened on injury. On this complaint, the Police did not take any action, therefore, the defendant lodged a private complaint against the plaintiff. The said complaint was dismissed on 19-12-1975 and the plaintiff was honourably acquitted. The trial Court held that the complaint was false and was lodged with the intention to wreak vengeance because the plaintiff had given evidence against the defendant. On these allegations the plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 500/- as the amount spent by him in the litigation, Rs. 1,000/- for mental agony and defamation. He claimed a sum of Rs. 1,5007- in all. The defendant in his written statement contended that the plaintiff was not a respectable person, being a Court bird, he is quarrelsome and being a panch, he is trying to influence the public and the public at large is afraid of him. According to him, he had lodged the correct report and he does not carry any grudge against the plaintiff because he had given evidence in his wife's case. According to him, the complaint was true narration of facts and even if the plaintiff was acquitted, it does not provide a foundation for seeking damages. According to him, when permission to cut the branches of the mango tree was given to him by the Additional Collector, he was justified in his act and the plaintiff could not have abused him. According to him, the witnesses who had witnessed the incident turned hostile, therefore, he could not prove his case. As the parties joined issue, the learned trial Court recorded evidence and after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit. The learned first appellate Court after hearing the parties held that the respondent had maliciously prosecuted the appellant in the complaint case No. 157/74 without any reasonable and probable cause and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages, to the extent of Rs. 500/- only. Being dissatisfied with the decree granted by the first appellate Court, the defendant has preferred this appeal.
3. Mrs. Daharia learned counsel for the appellant contends that the findings of the Court below that the defendant had no reasonable and probable cause is contrary to record and the settled legal position. She also submitted that in the absence of the reasons for the quantum of damages, Rs. 500/- could not have been awarded to the plaintiff. Shri Seth, on the other hand, submitted that the first appellate Court rightly held that the defendant had levelled false and malicious allegations and the defendant knew that the allegations were false or would have caused mental agony to the plaintiff. According to him, the suit was rightly decreed.
4. It is not in dispute before me that the defendant made a complaint of the alleged incident to the Police but the Police did not take any action against the plaintiff. The defendant was not satisfied with the report to the police but had proceeded with the matter further and filed a private complaint. Various allegations were made in the complaint and on the statement of the defendant, the plaintiff was summoned as an accused. It is also not in dispute that copy of the complaint is Ex.P-5, judgment delivered in the criminal trial is Ex.P-1 and the statement of the defendant recorded is Ex.P-6.
5. The judgment delivered in the criminal case is conclusive only as to the acquittal of the plaintiff. Normally, the onus of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause is on the plaintiff but it is subject to exception where the accusation against the plaintiff was in respect of offence which the defendant claims to have seen or he himself was a victim of the offence and the trial ends in acquittal on merits, the presumption will not only be that the plaintiff was innocent but also that there was no reasonable and probable cause for making the accusation. Once the plaintiff discharges the basic burden by proving that the trial ended in an acquittal on merits, the burden would shift on the defendant to prove that the complaint made by him was for reasonable and probable cause and if the defendant fails to discharge this burden, it would be presumed that he had no reasonable and probable cause for the accusation. In a suit for recovery of damages on the ground of malicious prosecution, the Court is entitled to draw inferences on the basis of the proved facts. If a prosecution is launched by the complainant knowing full well that no offence was committed by the plaintiff and despite that a false report is made to secure prosecution or a private complaint is made on the same allegations, then only the presumption would be that the prosecution was malicious. Though it is not a rule of law that acquittal leads to the only conclusion that the prosecution was malicious but an acquittal on merits is a valid factor to be considered. The defendant in a case of damages would also be required to prove that he had reasonable and probable cause for raising imputations and making the allegations. The burden is not as heavy as it is in a criminal trial where the complainant or the prosecution is required to prove the guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. The defendant in the suit of the present nature can certainly bring such facts before the Court and on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the Court may come to the conclusion that the defendant had reasonable and probable cause for making accusations. The necessary ingredients of the allegations must be falsity thereof to the knowledge of the defendant and it must be proved that the defendant knowingly made such allegations against another. The Court may also consider that the allegations were made or the accusation was levelled with improper motives or the defendant bearing an ill will and acting recklessly and carelessly files criminal proceedings with the intention to cause harm. The amount and nature of evidence required to fulfil the foundation of burden depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
6. The plaintiff has proved that he is maternal uncle of the defendant's wife. In the suit for divorce filed by the defendant against his wife, the plaintiff attended the proceedings for 10 to 15 days, and was ultimately, examined as a witness. According to the plaintiff because of reconciliation, the wife went to the house of the defendant. This fact is unrebutted and clearly proves that the plaintiff was examined as a witness against the interest of the defendant. Examination of the plaintiff as a witness against the defendant would not lead to the solitary conclusion that the defendant was nursing a grudge against the plaintiff. What is further to be seen from the record is that there was a quarrel over cutting of the trees for the last few years. According to the defendant, the matter was reported to the Panchayat. The defendant denied these facts. He was confronted with his previous statement recorded in the criminal Court where he had made this statement. The defendant had stated that the plaintiff is a quarrelsome person, Court bird and, therefore, the plaintiff's wife looks after the cultivation. Unfortunately, barring ipse dixit there is no evidence. The defendant prosecuted the plaintiff on the allegations that he was filthily abused and was threatened. He had examined some witnesses under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code but could not find those witnesses to support his contention in the criminal court. In the criminal trial, the defendant moved an application that his witnesses have been won over by the plaintiff who was a Panch, therefore, he was unable to produce the witnesses. Non-examination of the material witnesses and as the important witnesses turned hostile, the complaint according to the defendant resulted in acquittal. The defendant did not lead any evidence to satisfy the judicial conscience of the Civil Court that he could not lead evidence because his star witnesses turned hostile. Not only this, the other witnesses who could have supported the defence of the defendant have not been examined in the Civil Court. The defence of the defendant appears to be moon shine. The defence is hollow in the foundation and unreliable on the top. The evidence led by the defendant only show prejudice towards the plaintiff. In my opinion, the lower Court did not commit any mistake in holding that the defendant had no reasonable and probable cause to prosecute the plaintiff. So far as the question of quantum is concerned, the plaintiff has stated that he had to appear in the Court on many occasions during the period of three years and he had spent Rs. 10/- per hearing for his expenses of going and coming to the Court. The Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 200/- only for the expenses. The court below did not award anything towards fees of the Counsel and other losses which have been suffered by the plaintiff. So far as the question of mental agony is concerned, there cannot be a hard and fast rule for awarding damages because mental agony are personal sufferings of a person who had to suffer ordeals of prosecution and has undergone treacherous trauma. Some discretion is always to be left to a Judge to put himself in the position of a sufferer and award damages. In my opinion, the Court below was right in awarding Rs. 300/- as damages for the mental agony and the sufferings. Question No. 1 is to be decided against the defendant/appellant and it must be held that the plaintiff could successfully prove absence of reasonable and probable cause on the part of the defendant. Question No. 2 is also decided against the defendant/appellant.
7. I do not find any force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed, but, however, there shall be no orders as to costs.