Delhi District Court
Sandeep Dabas Ors vs Jasram Kaim 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-10302-16
1. Sh. Sandeep Dabas
S/O Sh. Jaikumar Dabas
R/O : VPO Ladpur, Delhi-110081
2. Sh Mahinder Sharma
S/O Sh. Balkishan Sharma
R/O: 94, Friends Enclave
Sultanpur Majra, Delhi-110086 ...... PLAINTIFFS
Versus
Sh. Jasram Kaim
S/O Sh. Sohan Lal
R/O MCD Officer's Flat No. 50/1
Bunglow Road, Kamla Nagar,
Delhi-110007 ......DEFENDANT
Date of Institution of Suit : 30.06.2015
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 05.04.2025
SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION FOR
DEFAMATION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, the suit for damages and compensation for defamation stand dismissed.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.1/38 PART-A (PLAINTIFF'S CASE)
2. Before proceeding further it is pertinent to mention that the plaint itself consist of 61 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 all the three plaintiffs are stated to be members and the same being not relevant for the purpose of this judgment, stand not mentioned.
3. Similarly, a number of Paras are also devoted towards the alleged act of the defendant as to how he got various promotions and also promoted his wife qua which complaints were filed by the plaintiffs with their departments and the same also not being relevant for the purpose of this judgment, stand not mentioned.
4. The main crux of the plaint is that the plaintiff No.1 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.
5. It is stated that the plaintiffs accordingly contacted the said Principal on 11.06.2014 and 13.06.2014, who granted him permission to inspect the record.
6. It is stated that the plaintiff No.1 who was the RTI applicant sought the assistance of plaintiff No.2 & 3 and took them CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.2/38 alone to the said school for inspection of the record.
7. It is stated that plaintiff No.1 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.
8. It is stated that during the course of inspection, all the three plaintiffs 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.
9. 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 plaintiffs of having threatened the staff of the school.
10. It is further stated that on 18.06.2014 the three teachers who met the plaintiffs in the school filed a false police complaint with PS Maurya Enclave, Pitmapura alleging that plaintiff No.1 had misrepresented himself as an official from the Vigilance department of MCD and stated his purpose of visit as to audit the accounts of the school beside levelling the allegation that all the three plaintiffs misbehaved with them beside using abusive language and also extended threat of sending said three teachers behind bars.
11. It is submitted that subsequently the plaintiff submitted the CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.3/38 video footage of their visit to the school with the police authorities.
12. It is also submitted that no FIR was registered against the plaintiff in pursuance of said complaint.
13. It is also stated that thereafter on 26.04.2014 in a meeting of the Standing Committee of Delhi Municipal Corporation consisting of Mayor of Delhi and other elected/ nominated members, when a question was asked from the Adhyaksh of the said Committee, the defendant who was at that time an officer bearer of the MCD levelled false allegations and passed defamatory remarks against the plaintiffs.
14. The defamatory statement allegedly made by the defendant against the present plaintiffs in the meeting of the said standing Committee, as narrated in the plaint, and relevant for the purpose of this judgment are reproduced herein as under :-
" Prithvi Singh Rathore: Adhyaksh Ji, ek jankari me aaya hai ki pitampura me kisi school main kuch agyat logon dwara ghuskar vahan ka record khangalne ki koshish ki gayi. Main jankari Chahunga ki vo kaun log the? Kya pata chala unka? Kya vo mamla kya tha? Jara uske bare mein bataya jaye XXXXX Jasram Kaim : Adarniya adhyaksh mahodaya, 13 tarikh ko S.P. Block Pitampura ke school mein principal ko ek vyakti ka telephone gaya ke main vigilance officer hun aur aapke CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.4/38 school ka record check karna hai. To second Saturday hai 13 tarikh ko. To vo teen log vahan pahunche. Principal ne apni 3 lady teachers ko bulaya aur unhone 4 ghante tak vahan record dekha. Unhone 50 usme photocopy nikali ki inki photocopy kara do aur jab chowkidar photocopy karana gaya, to ek teacher ne poocha ki aap second saturday ko bhi kaam kar rahe ho? Hamari to chhutiyan hain, aapne hame bulaya hai to apna Identity card to dikhao. To identity card to tha nahi, to baad main unhone bataya ki hum vigilance officer nahi hain, aapke hi teacher saathi hain aur is prakar se ye record hum le lete hain aur aapki madad karne ke liye aaye hain Ye harassment that sir teachers ka. Unhone police mein report karai unki aur mere ko agle din ek media se telephone aaya sir jab maine aapko baat ki. Maine turant standing committee chairman, additional commissioner education aur mayor sahab ko bataya ki ek sthiti paida ho gayi hai aur agar ,media ke dwara ye baat aapko pata chalti hai to aapko malum hon chahiye Shiksha Vibhag se sambandhit adhikari ne bataya ki 13 tarikh ko S.P. Block, Pitampura ke school mein principal ko kisi vyakti dwara phone gaya ki veh vigilance office se hai aur unke school ka record check karna hai, teen log school mein pahunche. Is dauran principal ne school ki mahila adhyapikaon ko bhi apne karyalaya mein bula liya. Un teen logon ne lagbhag 4 ghante tak record ko check kiya aur record me so 50 paper ki photocopy karvane ke liye kaha. Is par school ki ek adhyapika dwara unka parichaya CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.5/38 patra diye jane ke liye kaha gaya to ve kehne lage ki hum vigilance officer nahi hain, balki adhyapak hain aur is record ko lekar adhyapakon ke sahayata hi karenge. Is mamle ki FIR darj karva di gayi hai.
Unhone aage jankari di ki unko is mamle ki jankari media dwara hi mili aur unhone tatkal is sare mamle ki jankari adhyaksh sthayi Samiti tatha Atirikta Upayukta (shiksha) ko de di gayi.
Unhone yaha bhi bataya ki thane mein ki gayi report ki copy bhi mil gayi hai. Unhone aage bataya ki doshi adhyapakon ke khilaf karyavai karne hetu Atrikta Upayukta (shiksha) kp report bhej di gayi hai ".
15. It is stated that the said proceedings were also published in the newspaper.
16. In this background, it is stated on behalf of plaintiff that the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 were subsequently suspended from their job as teachers and the said factum of their suspension was also published in the newspaper.
17. Hence, as per the plaintiff, on account of such action on part of defendant, their prestige in the eyes of their known person has suffered a dent beside causing loss of reputation, harassment etc. to the plaintiff No.1 & 2 who are 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. 5 Lacs to each of the plaintiffs beside pendentlite and future interest.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.6/38
18. Plaintiff No.3 expired during the course of trial and accordingly the present suit being a suit for damages personal to the plaintiff No.3, vide order dated 31.01.2019, the plaintiff No.3 stand dropped from the array of the parties, by the Ld Predecessor of this Court.
PART-B (DEFENDANT'S CASE)
19. The defendant took the plea that as per the plaintiff the cause of action arose on 25.06.2014 and 26.06.2014 whereas the suit itself has been filed on 30.06.2015 despite being the fact that the prescribed period of limitation is one year which expired on 25.06.2015.
20. The defendant also took the plea that at the time of alleged date of cause of action he was employed with the Delhi Municipal Corporation and accordingly his actions are protected by the provisions of section 477/478 of DMC Act coupled with the fact that the Delhi Municiapl Corporation of which he was an employee, having been not impleaded, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party.
21. The defendant also took the stand that he never took the name of the plaintiffs in his response to the question put to him by the Standing Members of Delhi Municipal Corporation Committee and accordingly is not liable towards the relief claimed in his individual capacity.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.7/38 PART-C (ISSUES)
22. Issues were framed vide order dated 17.12.2015.
i. Whether the suit is beyond the period of limitation i.e one year? (OPD.
ii. Whether the suit is bade for non joinder of parties I.e NDMC? OPD.
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation and damages as asked for in the plaint? If yes, the extent thereof? OPP.
iv. Relief.
PART-D
(PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE)
23. Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW-1 & proved on record the following documents :-
1. Ex PW1/A Affidavit of evidence.
2. Ex PW1/1 Photocopy of Identity Card.
3. EX Documents pertaining to above PW1/2(colly), issue of grant of illegal seniority.
later on Marked as Mark A & B.
4. EX PW1/3 Documents pertaining to the issue of illegal allotment of office quarter
5. EX PW1/4 Photocopy of complaint dated 19.05.2014.
6. Ex PW1/5 Complaint dated 17.11.2013
7. EX PW1/7 Copy of RTI reply dated 09.05.2014 CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.8/38 bears the signature of Smt. Shanti Soren
8. Ex Photocopy of RTI application and PW1/8(colly) copy of complaint dated 18.06.2014.
9. EX Photocopy of letter dated PW1/9(colly) 19.06.2014
10. EX PW1/10 Relevant pages if departmental (colly) proceeding file
11. Ex PW1/11 DVD containing the relevant audio Video Footage of the meeting of Standing Committee held on 25.06.2014.
12. Ex PW1/11-A Two DVDs brought by summoned &B witness Sh Ravi Malhotra, Head Clerk, Municipal Secretary Office, NDMC. Civic Centre
13. Ex PW1/12 Written Transcript of meeting dated 25.06.2014.
14. EX PW1/13 Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of the above DVD containing the relevant audio video footages of the meeting of Standing Committee held on 25.06.2014 & 02.07.2014
15. EX PW1/14 Written Transcript of the statement of Sh Prithvi Singh Rathore dated 02.07.2014.
16. EX PW1/15 Photocopy of suspension Order.
17. EX Documents pertaining to this matter PW1/16(colly
18. EX PW1/17 Photocopy of newspaper published on 09.07.2014 in Deshbandhu Newspaper
19. EX PW1/18 Photocopy of news published on 09.07.2014 in Dainik Jagran.
20. EX Photocopy of minutes of meeting of PW1/19(colly) standing committee of NDMC held CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.9/38 on 25.06.2014 & 02.07.2014 along with RTI application and its reply and receipts
21. EX PW1/20 Office copy of legal notice sent to the defendant.
22. EX PW1/21 Postal receipt
23. EX PW1/22 Postal receipt showing the dispatch of above legal notice.
24. EX PW1/23 Print out taken from the web site of Indian Post showing the delivery of above legal notice.
25. EX PW1/24 Reply sent by defendant to the plaintiff.
26. EX PW1/25 Photocopy of Police Investigation report along with RTI application and its reply.
27. EX Photocopy of certified copy of order PW1/26(colly) dated 09.01.2015 & 24.01.2025 passed by Sh. Sachin Sangwan, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari.
28. EX PW1/27 Photocopy of documents pertaining to departmental inquiry and action thereof.
29. EX Order dated 29.01.2013 & PW1/28(colly) 01.03.2013 of appellant authorities under RTI Act.
30. EX Photocopy of another RTI PW1/29(colly) application dated 26.06.2013
31. EX PW1/30 Photocopy of RTI reply dated 23.12.2014 pertaining to Delhi Darshan Scam.
32. EX PW1/31 The complaint against the defendant in respect of re-allotment of Municipal accommodation.
33. Ex PW1/32 The CD-ROM containing conversation dated 11.06.2014 & 13.06.2014 CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.10/38
34. EX PW1/33 Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of aforesaid CD.
35. EX PW1/34 Two DVDs containing video footage showing aforesaid conversation held on 14.06.2014.
36. EX PW1/35 Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
37. EX The attested copies of documents PW1/36(colly) showing/containing irregularities such as Teacher's Attendance.
38. EX Complaint dated 09.07.2014.
PW1/37(colly
39. EX PW1/38 Attendance register for the period April, 2011 to October,2012.
40. EX PW1/39 The hobby fund register for the period March, 2009 to July,2012.
24. The PW-1 deposed along the lines of the stand taken in the suit.
25. Plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW-2 & proved on record the following documents :-
1. EX PW2/A Affidavit of evidence
2. EX.PW2/1 Photocopy of I Card.
3. EX PW2/2 Photocopy of suspension order
4. EX PW2/3 Office copy of legal notice sent to defendant.
5. EX PW2/4 Postal receipt of legal notice.
6. Ex PW2/5 The Print out taken from the website of Indian post/tracker report showing the delivery of article.
7. EX PW2/6 The acknowledgment card showing the receipt of legal notice along with its envelope.
8. EX PW2/7(a) Reply to legal notice.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.11/38 & (b)
9. EX PW2/8 Office copy of rejoinder.
10. Ex PW2/9 Two postal receipts showing dispatch of rejoinder
26. Plaintiffs also examined one Sh Kamal Kant Kaushik as PW-3 who proved on record the following documents :-
1. EX PW3/A Affidavit of evidence
2. EX PW3/1 Photocopy of driving license
3. EX PW3/2 Photocopy of legal notice.
4. EX PW3/3 Postal receipt of legal notice
5. EX PW3/4 Copy of print out taken from website of Indian Post showing the delivery of article.
27. Plaintiffs also examined one Sh Naresh Garg as PW-4 who proved on record the following documents :-
1. EX PW4/A Affidavit of evidence.
2. EX PW1/2 Complaint made to SHO PS (colly) Kamla Market dated 08.05.2014
3. EX PW1/3 Complaint dated 10.06.2013 to SHO Police Station Kamla Market
4. Ex PW1/31 Complaint made to Anti Corruption Branch.
5. EX Complaint dated 09.07.2014.
PW1/37(colly) PART-E (DEFENDANT EVIDENCE)
28. Defendant examined himself as DW-1 and proved on record the following documents :-
1. EX DW1/A Affidavit of evidence CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.12/38
2. EX DW1/1 Photocopy of Aadhar Card
3. Ex De-exhibited and marked as Mark DW1/2(colly) D1 (colly) being photocpy of judgment dated 05.01.2012 passed by CAT and photocopy of notification No. CED/AC/HC/Edu/2012/07 dated 01.01.2013
4. EX DW1/3 De-exhibited and marked as mark D2 being photocopy of notification, office order and CED order.
5. EX DW1/4 De- exhibited and marked as Mark-
D3 being photocopy of proceedings qua cancellation of grant of seniority of Ms Suman Bala.
6. Ex DW1/5 De-exhibited and marked as Mark-
D4 being photocopies of application dated 16.05.2014 of Ms Suman Bala and MCD orders dated 17.10.2013, 17.01.2013, reply by north MCD to complaint against Sh Jasram Kaim AD (Education) and Smt Suman Bala and other NDMC official dated 24.09.2014 addressed to Hemant Kumar Mishra, Inspector Anti Corruption Branch and Allotment letter dated 17.06.2014.
7. EX DW1/6 De-exhibited and marked as Mark D-5 i.e photocopy of complaints dated 24.07.2014 by Ms Santosh Gupta, complaint dated 10.11.2014 by Principal to DDE (Education) (HQ), complaint dated 10.11.2014 by Anju Arora to DDE, letter dated 10.11.2014 by Ms Santosh Gupta.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.13/38 PART-F (FINDINGS/CONCLUSION)
29. Heard. Considered.
30. Issue No.1-Whether the suit is beyond the period of limitation i.e one year? (OPD.
31. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant who has taken the plea to the effect that as per the plaintiff the cause of action allegedly arose on 25.06.2014 and 26.06.2014 whereas the suit itself has been filed on 29.06.2015 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 25.06.2015 and as such the suit is barred by law of limitation.
32. It is an admitted fact that the District Courts remains closed for summer vacations till 30th June of every year and accordingly the suit having been filed on 29.06.2015 i.e during the summer vacation period cannot be stated to be barred by law of limitations but rather is protected by virtue of section 4 of the Limitation Act itself.
33. Issue No.1 is decided against the defendant.
34. Issue No.2-Whether the suit is bade for non joinder of parties i.e NDMC? OPD.
35. This issue has been framed on account of the objection taken by the defendant to the effect that whatever submission has been made by him before the Standing Committee of Delhi Municipal Corporation were made by CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.14/38 him in response to the queries put by the members of the said committee to the Adhyakash of the same and on being asked, he in his official capacity has answered the same and as such as per the defendant, he being an employee of Delhi Municipal Corporation and duty bound as such to perform his duties in the form of providing answers to the queries posed by the members of the Standing Committee of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, his actions are 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 he was under the employment of Delhi Municipal Corporation, non joinder of Delhi Municipal Corporation as one of the defendant goes to the root of the suit and hence the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e Delhi Municipal Corporation.
36. It is not a disputed fact that as on the date of cause of action i.e the date on which the above stated statements were made by the defendant in the meeting of the Standing Committee of Delhi Municipal Corporation, he was not acting in an individual capacity but rather acting in an official capacity and as such his actions were protected in terms of provisions of section 477 of Delhi Municipal Corporation and the position being so, the Delhi Municipal Corporation was a necessary party to be impleaded as one of the defendant and accordingly, it is hereby held that indeed the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e Delhi Municipal Corporation.
37. Issue No.2 is accordingly decided in favour of defendant.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.15/38
38. Issue No.3-Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation and damages as asked for in the plaint? If yes, the extent thereof? OPP.
39. For the purpose of deciding this issue, it is pertinent to first of all discuss the basic ground of defamation as claimed by the plaintiff.
40. As per the plaintiff, one of the ground is that , complaints were made by three trachers of Primary Schoo 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.
41. The 2nd ground is that on account of the submissions made by the defendant before the members of the Committee of Delhi Municiapl Corporation and subsequent action on the part of the MCD to suspend the plaintiffs from their job as teacher, and the factum of publication of the same, their reputation has been harmed.
42. In order to appreciate the grounds in this respect, it is essential to discuss the law of defamation and malicious prosecution under tort.
43. The law of malicious prosecution under tort as evolved over a period of time can be understood as illustrated in the following Paras :-
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.16/38
(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 prosecutionor 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 process for purposes divergent from its intended effect under the law iii. The court clarified that vexatious civil proceedings CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.17/38 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 High Court's order, dismissing the damages awarded for malicious prosecution.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.18/38
(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-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.19/38 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-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.20/38 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 participating in 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 CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.21/38 to 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-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.22/38 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-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.23/38 (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-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.24/38
(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 CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.25/38 may 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-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.26/38 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-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.27/38 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.Itoccurswhentheproceedingsdonotendagainst 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 at 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-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.28/38 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 demonstrate malice and lack of reasonable and probable 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 CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.29/38 for 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 CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.30/38 plaintiff.
(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 consequenceofthemaliciousprosecution,theymaybe 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 CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.31/38 the existence of damages resulting from the 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.
(bbb) The right to take legal action for defamation is restricted to a period of one year CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.32/38 (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.
(be) In case of Criminal Defamation, a private Complaint is filed before the Judicial Magistrate.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.33/38 (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 to someone other than the claimant, CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.34/38 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 whose profiles defamatory statements have CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.35/38 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 c ame 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) Imputation of truth which public good requires 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.
(vi) Merits of Public performance. CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.36/38
vii. Censure passed in good faith by person having 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.
44. The submissions of the plaintiffs 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.
45. Whatever has been done by the defendant, that was done in the performance in official duty being responsible to answer the queries of the members of standing Committee of DMC.
46. Hence, the court has come to the conclusion that plaintiff are not entitled for the relief of compensation and damages as asked for.
47. Accordingly, issue no.3 is decided against the plaintiffs
48. Issue No. 4-Relief
49. In view of outcome of issue no.2 & 3, suit of the plaintiffs stand dismissed.
50. No order as to cost.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.37/38 Ordered accordingly.
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-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.38/38