Delhi District Court
Sandeep Dabas vs Nirmala on 5 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY SINGHAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE-09: (CENTRAL):
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
In the matter of:-
CS DJ-616972-16
Sh. Sandeep Dabas
S/O Sh. Jaikumar Dabas
R/O : VPO Ladpur,
Delhi-110081 ....... PLAINTIFF
Versus
Smt. Nirmala
W/O Sh Jagdish Prasad
R/O House No. H-19/90,
Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi-110085 ......DEFENDANT
Date of Institution of Suit : 02.02.2016
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 05.04.2025
SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION FOR
DEFAMATION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, on an application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by defendant, the suit for damages and compensation for defamation stand rejected.
PART-A (PLAINTIFF'S CASE)
2. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that another matter bearing No. CS DJ-10302-16 titled as Sandeep Dabas Vs Jasram Kaim, filed by the plaintiff seeking very same relief on almost exact ground against the CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.1/34 defendant therein has been dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 05.04.2025 and as the facts of that case and of the present case are almost similar, there is re- production/similarity of facts and findings in many part of this judgment and judgment of that case, which is not copy/paste but rather a necessity due to similarity of averments and the law point involved.
3. Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is pertinent to mention that the plaint itself consist of 64 Paras running into a number of pages and a number of Paras are devoted w.r.t functioning of one Pragatisheel Shishak Samaj of which the plaintiff is stated to be member and the same being not relevant for the purpose of this judgment, stand not mentioned.
4. Similarly, a number of Paras are also devoted towards the alleged act of the defendant as to how she is having grudge against plaintiff on account of various complaint against her filed by the plaintiff with their departments and the same also not being relevant for the purpose of this judgment, stand not mentioned.
5. The main crux of the plaint is that the plaintiff claiming himself to be the member of the said Pragatisheel Shishak Samaj filed certain RTI w.r.t certain alleged scams in Education Department of Delhi Municipal Corporation and in response to the said RTI he was informed that he can contact the School Principal of MC Primary School, SP Block, Pitampura Delhi for the inspection of the record.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.2/34
6. It is stated that the plaintiff accordingly contacted the said Principal on 11.06.2014 and 13.06.2014, who granted him permission to inspect the record.
7. It is stated that the plaintiff who was the RTI applicant sought the assistance of two other persons and took them along to the said school for inspection of the record.
8. It is stated that plaintiff introduced himself as RTI applicant to the three lady teachers found present in the said school and also told them the purpose of his visit as to inspect the record in response to the reply dated 09.05.2014 to his RTI application dated 07.04.2014.
9. It is stated that during the course of inspection, the plaintiff noted certain illegality and tampering in the record, at which the said three teachers called someone telephonically and thereafter called upon the plaintiff to leave the suit premises.
10. It is stated that the plaintiff secretly video-graphed the entire duration of his visit.
11. It is stated that subsequently on 16.06.2014, the Principal of the said school submitted a letter of the even date with Smt. Shanti Soren, DDE, Rohini Zone levelling false allegations against the plaintiff of having threatened the staff of the school.
12. It is further stated that on 18.06.2014 the three teachers who met the plaintiff in the school filed a false police complaint with PS Maurya Enclave, Pitmapura alleging that plaintiff had misrepresented himself as an official from the Vigilance CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.3/34 department of MCD and stated his purpose of visit as to audit the accounts of the school beside levelling the allegation that the plaintiff misbehaved with them beside using abusive language and also extended threat of sending said three teachers behind bars.
13. It is submitted that subsequently the plaintiff submitted the video footage of his visit to the school with the police authorities.
14. It is also submitted that no FIR was registered against the plaintiff in pursuance of said complaint, despite defendant misusing her official position to get it registered.
15. It is also stated that thereafter on 26.06.2014, the defendant issued suspension order of plaintiff by misusing her position as an officer bearer of the MCD levelling false allegations and passed defamatory remarks against the plaintiff.
16. It is also stated that the defendant tried to delay the reply to RTI application filed by plaintiff.
17. It is also stated that defendant made defamatory noting in official file against plaintiff and especially in noting dated 30.10.2014, 18.11.2014 and 01.12.2014 marked to Director Education.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.4/34
18. The defamatory statement allegedly made by the defendant against the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, and relevant for the purpose of this judgment are reproduced herein as under :-
(a) Inke dwara lagbhag char ghante tak mahila adhyapikaon ko anavashyak roop se pratadit vai unke saath abhadra vyavhar kiys gaya jo ki ek apradhik evam sexual harassment ka mamla hai.
(b) Sandeep Dabas has submitted a manipuated DVD in which is conversation with the Principal of SP Pitampura School held on 13.06.2014 possing as audit officer Vigilance Deptt. is completely missing.
(c) The DVD indicate that the three accused have made a video graphy of their inspection in S.P. Pitampura School on 14.06.14 for a period of about an hour inspecting the records as audit officer of Vigilance Deptt. HQ.
(d) The Acts of three accused of making a video graphy in the school premises is a gross misconduct for which Addl. Charge has to be levied in the proposed charge sheet against incumbents
(e) Addl. FIR is required to be lodged with the police on the basis of manipulated evidence by way of DVD submitted by the three accused to the plice.
(f) Reference notings of ALO/Vig. Dated 26.09.2014 in regard to status of police complaint dated 08.07.2014 CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.5/34 made to Maurya Enclave police against 3 accused Sandeep Dabas, Mahendra Sharma & K.K. Kaushik (Page 12/c) it was informed by the police that no FIR has been registered so far as according to police, no cognizable offence against the 3 accused has been found out. We observe that the police has arrived at the above conclusion in the basis of a manipulated DVD submitted by the accused to the police.
i. The DVD submitted by the accused to the police was dubbed and completely manipulated which has been relied by the police for some understandable considerations and therefore no FIR has been registered.
ii. Fresh and Additional police complaint be lodged against Mr. Sandeep Dabas, Mahender Sharma and K.K. Kaushik for their criminal acts in order to register an FIR against them.
iii. Additional drafts charges be submitted to vigilance department North DMC to cover new facts such as providing dubbed/ cut copy of DVD to police, making videography of school premises and lady teacher of school misrepresenting himself as audit officers vigilance Department HQ.
iv. Registration of FIR against Sandeep Dabas, Mahendra Sharma & K.K. Kaushik accused under section CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.6/34 416/417/170/177/191/192/193/441/447/464/4 65/503/506 & other relevant sections read with section 34/120-B of IPC.
v. The DVD submitted to the police by the accused in their defence of criminal acts committed by the accused, was totally dubbed, and made after Cut/Paste of voices.
vi. The Maurya Enclave police has arrived at wrong conclusion on the basis of a dubbed DVD made after making Cut/manipulated voice of Principal and suppressed/concealed/deleting the details of talk of Mr. Sandeep Dabas on 13.06.2014 with the principal on 13.06.2014 posing as audit officer of vigilance Deptt HQ, NDMC and only last part was recorded saying " achchha to hum aa jayein.
vii. It is important to mention that the 3 accused had trespassed the school premises on 14.06.2014 posing as audit officers of vigilance department to carry out inspection/audit record of school and they had divulged their identity as teachers only after inspecting/auditing the record of the school when lady teachers refused to give photocopies of documents to the accused teachers under RTI Act.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.7/34 viii. That thereafter the threat of Mr Sandeep Dabas, the accused teacher to the principal of school Smt Sushma Kumari on his moble No. 9871900470 at 02.30 P.M has been completely been missing/ removed from DVD submitted to police by Mr. Dabas and Co. and the same has totally been relied by the police without verifying/examining from staff of the school.
ix. After examining the official DVD provided by the police under RTI Act, it has been reported by the staff of the school that the accused had also made a videography of their audit/inspection posing as audit officers of vigilance Department HQ and committed further offence of making videography within school premises pertaining to their audit/inspection as audit officer particularly pertaining to lady staff of the school without permission.
19. It is stated that the said proceedings were also published in the newspaper.
20. In this background, it is stated on behalf of plaintiff that the plaintiff was subsequently suspended from his job as teacher and the said factum of his suspension was also got published in the newspaper by the defendant.
21. Hence, as per the plaintiff, on account of such action on part of defendant, his prestige in the eyes of his known person CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.8/34 has suffered a dent beside causing loss of reputation, harassment etc. to the plaintiff who is still under suspension, as on the date of filing of the suit and hence the present suit for claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 10 Lacs beside pendentlite and future interest.
PART-B (DEFENDANT'S CASE)
22. The defendant took the plea that the suit is barred by law of limitation.
23. The defendant took the stand that she having acted in her official capacity made file noting as per requirement of her job and the said action on her part cannot be made a subject matter of the present defamation suit.
PART-C (GROUNDS OF APPLICATION U/O 7 RULE 11 CPC)
24. The defendant took the plea that at the time of alleged date of cause of action she was employed with the Delhi Municipal Corporation and accordingly her actions are protected by the provisions of section 477/478 of DMC Act.
25. It is also stated that no tort liability for defamation is maintainable as there is no judicial findings of the complaint against the plaintiff being false is there.
26. It is also stated that mere recommendation for action as per law on complaint received against plaintiff from Govt. servant, is not actionable against the defendant.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.9/34 PART-D (PLAINTIFF'S REPLY)
27. The suit is filed due to defendant's noting containing defamatory statement against the plaintiff and hence there is cause of action triable as per law.
PART-E (FINDINGS/CONCLUSION)
28. Heard. Considered.
29. First point to be considered as to whether the suit is filed within limitation period or not.
30. As per the plaintiff the cause of action allegedly lastly arose on 09.07.2014 when the plaintiff was suspended due to defamatory statement of defendant as well as on 09.12.2014 when the defendant made complaint dated 09.12.2014 to SHO PS Maurya Enclave which was registered vide DD No. 54-B dated 12.12.2014 whereas the suit itself has been filed on 02.02.1016 and as per the provisions of article 75 & 76 of Part VI of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the limitation period is one year which expired on 08.12.2015 and as such the suit is barred by law of limitation.
31. Hence, the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation.
32. The 2nd point is that as per the admitted facts of the case the defendant made all the notings in her official capacity while under the employment of Delhi Municipal Corporation and accordingly the provisions of section 477 of DMC Act, 1957 CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.10/34 comes into picture which bars the filing of any such suit against such employee when the act was done under the order or directions of the Municipal Authority for anything intended to be done under this act or any rule, regulations or bye-law made thereunder.
33. Section 477 of DMC Act, 1957 is reproduced as under :-
"477. Protection of Action of {A corporation} etc- No suit or prosecution shall be entertained in any cost against {A corporation} or against any Municiapl Authority or any Municipal Officer or other Municipal employee or against any person acting under the order or direction of any Municipal Authority or any Municipal officer or other Municipal employee, for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done, under this act or any rule, regulation or bye law made thereunder"
34. Seen in the light of provisions of section 477 DMC Act, it is clear that whatever noting/action has been made by defendant were actions expected to be performed by her during the course of her official position being Dy. Director Education, acting on the basis of complaint received against the plaintiff and the position being so, the defendant being an employee of Delhi Municipal Corporation and duty bound as such to perform her duties in the form of her actions is protected by the provisions of section 477 & 478 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and as such as the cause of action arose at a time when she was under the employment of Delhi Municipal Corporation & as she was CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.11/34 not acting in an individual capacity but rather acting in an official capacity and as such her actions were protected in terms of provisions of section 477 of Delhi Municipal Corporation and as such the suit is barred by virtue of section 477 of DMC Act, 1957.
35. Furthermore, it is pertinent to also discuss the basic ground of defamation as claimed by the plaintiff.
36. As per the plaintiff, one of the ground is that , complaints were made by three teachers of Primary School of Pitam Pura with PS Maurya Enclave regarding alleged misrepresentation and misconduct on the part of the plaintiff in representing themselves as official from the vigilance department of MCD to the said three teachers, on account of which as per the plaintiff the tort of malicious prosecution stand committed against them.
37. The 2nd ground is that on account of the submissions/notings/complaint made by the defendant and subsequent action on the part of the MCD to suspend the plaintiff from his job as teacher, and the factum of publication of the same, his reputation has been harmed.
38. In order to appreciate the grounds in this respect, it is essential to discuss the law of defamation and malicious prosecution under tort.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.12/34
39. The law of malicious prosecution under tort as evolved over a period of time can be understood as illustrated in the following Paras :-
(a) In tort law, the concept of malicious prosecution holds significant weight, embodying the principle of seeking redress for wrongful or improper motives behind judicial proceedings. The term "malicious prosecution"
encompasses a judicial action initiated without probable cause and driven by wrongful intent.
TORT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
(b) The Apex Court, in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray, elucidated two pivotal elements essential for constituting a malicious prosecution i.e :-
i. The absence of probable cause for instituting the prosecution or suit;
ii. and the favorable termination of such prosecution or suit for Malicious Prosecution under Tort for the defendant.
(c) Moreover, the court delineated the distinction between an action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process:- :-
i. While malicious prosecution of tort entails the malicious issuance of legal process ii. Abuse of process involves the improper use of legal CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.13/34 process for purposes divergent from its intended effect under the law iii. The court clarified that vexatious civil proceedings lacking in substance are subject to the same rules as malicious prosecutions in criminal proceedings.
(d) In a pertinent case, an employee of the Board faced disciplinary actions and an FIR alleging misconduct and various offenses. Subsequently, upon delay in issuing a charge-sheet, the employee sought intervention from the High Court to quash the disciplinary proceedings.
Despite the issuance of a charge-sheet and an inquiry initiated thereafter, the Board opted to discontinue the case, ultimately revoking the employee's suspension orders. Subsequent to these events, the employee filed a suit in the Court of Assistant District Judge, seeking damages against the Board and a newspaper for the institution of disciplinary proceedings and alleged defamatory publications, respectively. The trial court ruled in favor of the employee, citing the probability of extraneous reasons behind the suspension and awarded damages for harassment and loss of reputation. However, upon appeal by the Board, the High Court upheld the damages awarded for harassment, deeming them as damages for malicious prosecution causing mental anguish. Despite this interpretation, the Apex Court intervened, criticizing the High Court's conclusion as perplexing, contradictory, and lacking coherence. Consequently, the Apex Court overturned the CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.14/34 High Court's order, dismissing the damages awarded for malicious prosecution.
(e) The above case underscores the nuanced application of malicious prosecution tort principles in legal proceedings. It highlights the necessity for clarity and coherence in judicial interpretations to ensure equitable dispensation of justice. As such, the Apex Court's intervention serves as a reminder of the meticulous scrutiny required in adjudicating claims of malicious prosecution, safeguarding against erroneous conclusions and upholding the integrity of legal processes.
INGREDIENTS OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
(f) The legal doctrine of malicious prosecution is founded upon the principle that legal proceedings initiated from malicious intent, rather than in pursuit of justice, constitute a tortious act. The Apex Court, in its rulings, clarified that the burden of proof lies upon the individual prosecuted to demonstrate the lack of honest or reasonable action on the part of the prosecutor.
(g) Failure to establish specific averments in the plaint regarding the malicious nature of the proceedings results in the determination that malicious prosecution did not occur.
(h) In an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving several key elements:-
i. Firstly, they must demonstrate their innocence, CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.15/34 confirmed by the tribunal overseeing the accusation.
ii. Secondly, they must establish the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution, indicating circumstances inconsistent with such cause.
iii. Lastly, they must prove that the proceedings were initiated with malicious intent, serving an indirect and improper motive rather than the pursuit of justice.
(i) To succeed in a suit for damages arising from malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must establish certain essentials:-
i. Firstly, they must show that they were prosecuted by the defendant.
ii. Secondly, they must demonstrate that the prosecution lacked reasonable and probable cause.
iii. Additionally, they must prove that the defendant acted with malice, not merely intending to uphold the law.
iv. Furthermore, it must be shown that the proceedings terminated in favor of the plaintiff and that they suffered damage as a result of the prosecution.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.16/34 PROSECUTION BY THE DEFENDANT
(i) The requirement that prosecution must be instituted by the defendant is a fundamental element in claims of malicious prosecution. A prosecutor is considered as someone actively involved in initiating legal proceedings against another individual. Despite criminal proceedings being conducted in the name of the State, for the purpose of establishing malicious prosecution, the prosecutor is typically the individual who instigates the proceedings.
(j) This principle was highlighted in Balbhaddar v. Badri Sah, where the Privy Council emphasized that actions for malicious prosecution can be pursued against private individuals who provide information to authorities leading to prosecution.
(k) Merely giving information to the police, even if false, does not automatically give rise to a cause of action for malicious prosecution unless the individual can be proven to be the real prosecutor, actively participatingin and primarily responsible for the prosecution.
(l) In Dattatraya Pandurang Datar v. Hari Keshav, the court ruled that merely lodging an FIR with the police does not constitute prosecution if the defendant did not actively participate in the subsequent proceedings.
(m) Similarly, in Pannalal v. Shrikrishna, the court held that liability for malicious prosecution cannot be attributed to CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.17/34 individuals who only provided information to the police without actively participating in the prosecution.
(n) The conduct of the complainant before and after making the complaint is crucial in determining whether they are the real prosecutor. As elucidated by the Privy Council in Gaya Prasad v. Bhagat Singh, if the complainant knowingly provides false information or tries to mislead the police by procuring false evidence, they can be considered the prosecutor and held liable for malicious prosecution.
(o) In T.S. Bhatta v. A.K. Bhatta, the defendant's active involvement in various stages of legal proceedings, including moving for revision and appearing as a witness, established their role as the real prosecutor, rendering them liable for malicious prosecution tort.
COMMENCEMENT OF PROSECUTION
(p) The commencement of prosecution, crucial in determining the viability of a claim for malicious prosecution, occurs when a person is summoned to answer a complaint before a judicial authority. In legal precedent, it's established that the mere lodging of an FIR or bringing a matter before executive authority does not signify the commencement of prosecution.
(q) In the case of Khagendra Nath v. Jabob Chandra, the plaintiff was accused of wrongfully taking a bullock cart belonging to the defendant, leading to the lodging of an CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.18/34 FIR. However, no formal prosecution ensued as the plaintiff was neither arrested nor prosecuted. The court ruled that merely bringing the matter before executive authority did not constitute prosecution, rendering the action for malicious prosecution unsustainable.
(r) Therefore, for a claim of malicious prosecution to be viable, it is imperative that the prosecution has commenced through the issuance of a summons by a judicial authority.
PROCEEDING BEFORE QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY
(s) The distinction between proceedings before quasi-
judicial authorities and formal judicial prosecution plays a crucial role in determining claims for malicious prosecution, as illustrated in several legal precedents.
(t) In the case of Kapoor Chand v. Jagdish Chand, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that proceedings before the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines, Punjab amounted to prosecution. Here, the appellant falsely accused the respondent, a practicing Hakim, of obtaining qualifications through fraudulent means. However, upon investigation, the Board confirmed the respondent's qualifications and authorized him to practice. In a subsequent action for malicious prosecution, the court held that the respondent was entitled to claim compensation, recognizing the proceedings before the Board as tantamount to prosecution.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.19/34 (u) Conversely, in D.N. Bandopadhyaya v. Union of India, the Rajasthan High Court determined that departmental inquiries by disciplinary authorities did not constitute prosecution. In this case, the plaintiff, a Way Inspector with the railway, faced disciplinary action following an inquiry into a train derailment. Despite the disciplinary authority's decision being overturned in a writ petition, the court held that the disciplinary proceedings did not amount to prosecution. It reasoned that disciplinary authorities functioned in a quasi-judicial capacity rather than as formal judicial bodies.
(v) The decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kapoor Chand v. Jagdish Chand is perceived as more logical, acknowledging the impact of such proceedings on individuals and allowing them recourse through claims for compensation.
ABSENCE OF REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE (w) In claims of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant prosecuted them without reasonable and probable cause, a critical element of the case. Reasonable and probable cause is defined as an honest belief in the guilt of the accused, founded upon reasonable grounds and circumstances that would lead an ordinarily prudent person to conclude the accused was likely guilty of the imputed crime.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.20/34
(x) In Shiv Shankar Patel v. Smt. Phulki Bai, a prosecution ended in acquittal after eight years, and it was found to have been initiated with wrongful intentions rather than a genuine pursuit of justice, leading to compensation for the suffering endured by the respondents.
(y) Similarly, in State of Tripura v. Haradhan Chowdhury, the plaintiff, a reputed timber merchant, was arrested based on false allegations by the appellant, leading to his discharge due to lack of credible evidence. The court awarded damages for malicious prosecution, emphasizing the mala fide nature of the prosecution.
(z) Moreover, in cases like Ashwani Kumar v. Satpal, where the defendant lodged a prosecution against the plaintiff knowing the accusation was false, the court held the defendant liable for malicious prosecution. It was observed that launching criminal proceedings solely for settling personal scores, without reasonable cause, is unjustifiable and warrants compensation for damages incurred by the plaintiff.
(aa) However, establishing lack of reasonable and probable cause is not straightforward. Advice from competent legal counsel can serve as a defense, presuming the defendant had reasonable grounds to initiate the prosecution. Yet, if the defendant misleads their lawyer with false information, as seen in Smt. Manijeh v. Sohrab Peshottam Kotwal, this defense may CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.21/34 not hold, and liability for malicious prosecution may be established.
(bb) Importantly, the absence of reasonable and probable cause cannot be inferred solely from dismissal or acquittal of the accused. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to demonstrate this absence, except in exceptional cases where the circumstances indicate the prosecutor must have known the innocence of the accused. In such situations, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the presence of reasonable and probable cause, thereby potentially avoiding liability for malicious prosecution.
MALICE (cc) Malice, in the context of malicious prosecution claims, refers to an improper and wrongful motive behind initiating legal proceedings against the plaintiff. It denotes an intention to misuse the legal process for purposes other than those intended by law, such as harassing the plaintiff or gaining a collateral advantage. Contrary to common belief, malice does not necessarily entail personal spite or ill will but encompasses any intent to violate the law to the detriment of another.
(dd) Proving malice requires demonstrating that the prosecution was initiated with an oblique motive, rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. This means showing that the defendant's primary aim was not to uphold the law but to harm the plaintiff unjustly. Malice can CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.22/34 manifest in various forms, including haste, recklessness, failure to conduct proper inquiries, a spirit of retaliation, or a history of enmity between the parties involved.
(ee) Importantly, malice must be established separately from the absence of reasonable and probable cause. While the lack of reasonable cause may indicate negligence or carelessness on the part of the defendant, it does not automatically imply malice. Similarly, the presence of malice does not necessarily mean there was no reasonable cause for prosecution. Malicious motives can coexist with a genuine belief in the guilt of the accused, highlighting the need to assess each aspect independently.
(ff) Furthermore, the mere fact of the plaintiff's acquittal does not serve as evidence of malice. While an acquittal may suggest that the prosecution lacked merit, it does not conclusively prove malicious intent on the part of the defendant. However, if the defendant continues to pursue the prosecution despite obtaining positive knowledge of the accused's innocence, this can be considered malicious behavior.
(gg) In cases where the accusation against the plaintiff results in an acquittal, there is a presumption of innocence, and it is incumbent upon the defendant to prove the presence of reasonable and probable cause for the accusation. This shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant, requiring them to demonstrate the CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.23/34 legitimacy of their actions.
TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN
FAVOUR OF PLAINTIFF
(hh) In claims of malicious prosecution, termination of
proceedings in favor of the plaintiff is a crucial element that must be established. This termination does not necessarily mean a judicial determination of innocence but rather the absence of a judicial determination of guilt. It occurs when the proceedings do not end against the plaintiff, such as when there is an acquittal on a technicality, a quashed conviction, a discontinued prosecution, or a discharge of the accused.
(ii) However, if a plaintiff has been convicted by a court, they cannot bring an action for malicious prosecution, even if they can prove their innocence and that the accusation was malicious and unfounded. The legal principle is that termination in favor of the plaintiff means the proceedings have ended without a determination of guilt, regardless of whether innocence has been proven.
(jj) In cases where the prosecution results in conviction a lower level but is reversed on appeal, there may be a question regarding the viability of an action for malicious prosecution. Initially, the position in Reynolds v. Kennedy held that the original conviction acted as a bar to such an action, rendering subsequent reversal on appeal ineffective. However, this position CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.24/34 has been challenged by subsequent decisions, suggesting that if proceedings terminate in favor of the plaintiff on appeal, a cause of action for malicious prosecution may exist.
(kk) Mere acquittal does not prove malice or the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to demonstratemaliceandlackofreasonableandprobable cause.
(ll) In cases like Sugan Kanwar v. Rakesh, where the criminal court acquitted the plaintiff due to lack of evidence, the court emphasized that the mere acquittal does not necessarily imply baselessness or malice in the prosecution.
(mm) Similarly, in Ram Lal v. Mahender Singh, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a suit for malicious prosecution, stating that the burden lies with the plaintiff to prove malice and intent to harass or defame, even if the criminal trial resulted in acquittal.
(nn) Moreover, when government agencies act in good faith in the performance of their official duties, they cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution.
(oo) In State of Tripura v. Ranjit Kumar Debnath, the court held that competent officers, including those from the Border Security Force (B.S.F.), participating in official duties on specific information, were not liable for CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.25/34 compensation in a suit for malicious prosecution, as there was no malice in their actions.
DAMAGE (pp) In claims of malicious prosecution, it's imperative for the plaintiff to establish that they have suffered damages as a consequence of the prosecution. While the termination of proceedings in favor of the plaintiff is crucial, damage is the essence of the action. Damage may manifest in various forms, including harm to reputation, person, and property.
(qq) Damage to reputation is inherent in false criminal charges. Being accused of a criminal offense tarnishes one's reputation and can have long-lasting effects on their standing in society.
(rr) Additionally, damage to the person occurs when an individual is arrested, detained, or subjected to mental stress due to the prosecution. This can result in significant emotional distress and harm to the individual's well-being.
(ss) Moreover, there can be financial damage associated with malicious prosecution. Defending oneself against criminal charges often entails substantial legal expenses, which can impose a financial burden on the plaintiff. Expenses incurred for legal representation, court fees, and other related costs contribute to the overall damage suffered by the plaintiff.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.26/34 (tt) However, the failure of the prosecution does not automatically imply damage to reputation. In cases where the plaintiff's reputation remains intact despite the failed prosecution, the court may not award damages for reputation-related harm. For example, in Wiffen v. Bailey Romfort U.D.C., the plaintiff's failure to comply with a notice did not damage his reputation despite being prosecuted, leading to the dismissal of the claim for malicious prosecution.
(uu) Nevertheless, in instances where the prosecution results in humiliation, physical harm, or significant financial loss, the plaintiff may be entitled to compensation. In Sova Rani Dutta v. Debabrata Dutta, the defendant's false FIR led to the plaintiff's handcuffing by the police, resulting in humiliation and emotional distress. In such cases, where the plaintiff can demonstrate tangible harm suffered as a direct consequence of the malicious prosecution, they may be awarded damages.
To Sum Up (vv) To successfully establish a claim for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must demonstrate the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution, the presence of malice on the part of the defendant, termination of proceedings in favor of the plaintiff, and the existence of damages resulting from the CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.27/34 prosecution.
(ww) Malice, refers to the improper motive behind the prosecution, indicating an intent to use the legal process for wrongful purposes rather than seeking justice.
(xx) Furthermore, termination of proceedings in favor of the plaintiff is essential, whether through acquittal, discharge, or discontinuance of the prosecution.
(yy) Finally, damages resulting from the malicious prosecution encompass harm to reputation, person, and property. These damages serve as the foundation for assessing the compensation owed to the plaintiff for the injuries endured due to the wrongful prosecution.
Defamation (zz) A man's reputation is his property. The objective of law of defamation is to protect one's reputation, honor, integrity, character and dignity in the society. A person aggrieved may file a criminal prosecution as well as a civil suit for damages for defamation.
(aaa) Defamation is intentional false communication, act of publication of defamatory content, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation, or induces disparaging, hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.28/34 (bbb) The right to take legal action for defamation is restricted to a period of one year (ccc) Defamatory statements can be made as libel or as slander:-
i. Libel: the publication of a false and defamatory statement to injure the reputation of another person without lawful justification or excuse. The statement must be in a printed form, e.g. writing, printing, pictures, statue, etc. ii. Slander: A false and defamatory statement by spoken words and/or gestures tending to injure the reputation of others.
Remedies available under Indian Law:
(bd) India offers the defamed a remedy both in civil law for damages and in criminal law for punishment. In Civil Law, defamation falls under the Law of Torts, which imposes punishment in the form of damages awarded to the claimant (person filing the claim).
Under Criminal Law, Defamation is bailable, non- cognizable and compoundable offence. Limitation to file criminal defamation complaint is 3 years from the period of knowledge of offence. The civil remedy is to file a suit for damages and section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals in criminal defamation.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.29/34 (be) In case of Criminal Defamation, a private Complaint is filed before the Judicial Magistrate.
(bf) In Civil Defamation, a person who is defamed can move the competent Court having pecuniary jurisdiction and seek damages in the form of monetary compensation. Under Section 19 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) civil suit can be filed either where the Defendant resides or where the Defamatory statement was made/published.
(bg) Court Fees for Civil Defamation suit is to be paid in accordance to the value of the monetary compensation claimed. Court Fees varies State to State.
Essential Ingredients of Defamation:
(iii) Regardless of whether a defamation action is framed in libel or slander, the plaintiff must always prove the following:-
i. That the words, pictures, gestures, etc. are defamatory.
ii. That the plaintiff must show that they refer to him.
iii. That they were maliciously published.
iv. Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some other 3rd party and unless the content is published- made available CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.30/34 to someone other than the claimant, there can no defamation.
v. Defamation on social networking websites:
vi. Social media and networking websites have occupied an insurmountable space in our lives. In the current age of lightning fast communication channels and the fast growing Social Networking Websites, majority of the people suffer from an urge to put up their thoughts and opinions about different matters and incidents on these Social Networking Websites. With the proliferation of social networking websites and their widespread use, especially amongst the youth, one observes certain legal loopholes in their operation and use. One such glaring drawback is the opportunity they provide for "cyber- defamation" or "virtual defamation" to mushroom.
vii. Under the operative Indian law, the person
who made such statement as well as its
distributor and publishers can be sued. Apart from the author of such statement, intermediaries such as the concerned Social Networking Websites, the website holder, the internet service providers,as well as the other users of such Social Networking Websites on CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.31/34 whose profiles defamatory statements have been written by the author, can be sued in their capacity as a publisher of defamatory statements and can be held liable for such statements. After the Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 became effective intermediaries such as Social Networking Websites became immune from any defamation liability provided such intermediaries acted bonafide or came within the purview of the exemptions envisaged under the amendment.
Some common Defenses/Exceptions to
Defamation:
(bh) There are following exceptions for Defamation under Sec. 499 IPC:-
(i) Imputationoftruthwhichpublicgoodrequires be making or publishing.
(ii) Public conduct of public servant.
(iii) Conduct of any person touching any public question.
(iv) Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.
(v) Merit s of the case decided in court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.32/34
(vi) Merits of Public performance.
(vii) Censurepassedingoodfaithbypersonhaving lawful authority over another.
viii. Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person.
ix. Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.
40. The submissions of the plaintiff seen in the light of the above law of tort concerning defamation and malicious prosecution makes it clear that the same do not at all fulfill any of the criteria whereby it can be claimed that the defendant action were malicious or in any manner defamatory qua the plaintiff.
41. Whatever has been done by the defendant, that was done in the performance of official duty being responsible to act as such.
42. Hence, the court has come to the conclusion that there is no cause of action to file the present suit.
43. Hence, in view of above discussion and findings, suit of the plaintiff stand rejected as per the provisions of order 7 Rule 11 (a) & (d) CPC.
44. No order as to cost.
Ordered accordingly.
CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.33/34 Let decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court on 05.04.2025 (Vinay Singhal) District Judge-09 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
05.04.2025 CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.34/34 CS DJ-616972-16 Sandeep Dabas Vs Nirmala Pg.35/34