Delhi District Court
Akhlaq Ahmed (Senior Citizen) vs Mohd. Aziz Ors on 4 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY SINGHAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE-09: (CENTRAL):
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
In the matter of:-
CS DJ-13638-16
Sh.Akhlaq Ahmed
S/O Late Shri Salim Ahmed
R/O E-432/7, West Vinod Nagar,
Delhi-110092 ...... PLAINTIFF
Versus
1. Shri Mohd. Aziz @ Bhura
S/O Shri Sami-Ur-Rehman
R/O E-423/7, West Vinod Nagar,
Delhi-110092
2. Constable Kiran Pal,
No. 1626/E, posted at PS Pandav Nagar, Delhi
3(A) Shri Dalbir Singh,
ASI, NO. 43/E,
CB NO. 2650,
posted at Delhi Police Secuirty,
Vinay Marg, New Delhi
3(B) also at
B-88/15, Ganga Vihar, Gali No.2,
near Sunrise Coaching Institute,
Gokalpuri, Delhi
3(C) also at- PS Mandawali, Delhi
(No.2 & 3's service to be effected
through SHO/Commissioner of Police .. DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution of Suit : 31.05.2006
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 04.01.2025
CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.1/30
SUIT FOR DAMAGES
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, the suit for damages seeking recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/- stand dismissed.
PART-A (PLAINTIFF'S CASE)
2. Defendant No.1 is a private individual.
3. Defendant No.2 & 3 are Police Officers with Delhi Police.
4. On 12.04.2003, as per the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 created disturbance in the marriage ceremony of daughter of the plaintiff.
5. On 22.04.2003 the defendant o.1 along with defendant No.3 came to the house of the plaintiff and threatened him.
6. An anticipatory bail application was filed by the plaintiff wherein in response to the reply of the Police authority to the effect that no case is pending against the plaintiff, the said application was disposed of.
7. On 26.04.2003 the defendant No.3 lifted the plaintiff from his home in response to a Kalandra bearing DD No. 23-A dated 26.04.2003 U/S 107/151 Cr.P.C and produced before concerned SDM who remanded him to the judicial custody and thereafter disposed of the Kalandra ordering the plaintiff to submit bonds for keeping peace for one year, CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.2/30 vide order dated 08.09.2003.
8. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff against the said order dated 08.09.2003 passed by Ld SDM and vide order dated 23.04.2005 the court of Ld. ASJ, Delhi upheld the said appeal thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 08.09.2003.
9. In this background the plaintiff has pleaded that on account of the filing of false and frivolous Kalandra against him by the defendant No.1,2 & 3 resulting into he being remanded to Judicial Custody and thereafter calling upon him to keep peace by the Ld. SDM, which order stand set aside in appeal by Ld. ASJ, he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-.
10. Hence, the present suit.
PART-B (DEFENDANT'S CASE)
11. Defendant No.1 stated that the suit is barred by limitation.
12. Defendant No.1 also submitted that he lodged a complaint with the police as on 26.04.2003 as the plaintiff abused him and raised a quarrel with him qua which a PCR call was made by the defendant No.1 and when the Police reached the spot, the plaintiff in the presence of the police official hit him with a brick as well as with stick, on account of which the plaintiff was arrested and the impugned Kalandra U/S 107/151 Cr.P.C was lodged against him and accordingly it is submitted that there was sufficient cause for the defendant CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.3/30 No.1 to be the complainant qua the said Kalandra and hence he having acted bonafide is not liable for the amount claimed.
13. Defendant No.2 & 3 filed joint Written statement submitting that they acted in their official capacity as Police Officer and accordingly their action are protected via section 138 of Delhi Police Act.
PART-C (ISSUES)
14. Issues were framed vide order dated 20.11.2006.
(1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation, as alleged? OPD2.
(2) Whether suit is liable to be rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC for want of notice u/s 80 of CPC and 140 of Delhi Police Act? OPD2 (3) Whether suit is also liable to be dismissed in terms of Section 138 of Delhi Police Act? OPD.
(4) Whether the suit is barred by section 41 (h) of Specific Relief Act? OPD 2 & 3.
(5) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any damage as
claimed? OPP
(6) Relief.
CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.4/30
PART-D
(PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE)
15. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 who proved on record the following documents :-
1. Ex PW1/1 Affidavit of evidence.
2. EX PW1/A The Copy of order dated 22.04.2003.
3. Ex PW1/B & The copy of complaints dated PW1/C 25.04.2003 and receipt with regd.
A.D.
4. Ex PW1/D The copy of Kalandra vide DD No. 23-A dated 26.04.2003
5. Ex PW1/E The copy of complaint given on 24.06.2003 to DCP, Vigilance.
6. Ex PW1/G Copy of complaint dated 16.05.2003 and 17.05.2003 to the ACP and SHO Preet Vihar.
7. Ex PW1/H Complaint dated 15.05.2003 to DCP concerned.
8. Ex PW1/I The Order dated 23.04.2005 in Open Court by Sh S.P. Garg, Ld. ASJ, KKD, Delhi
9. Ex PW1/J The copy of Legal notice dated 24.08.2005
10. Ex PW1/K Copy of postal receipt dated 14.11.2005 to the defendant No.3.
11. Ex.PW1/L The copy of UPC as well as postal receipts dated 14.11.2005 to the defendant No.3.
12. Ex.PW1/M Copy of receipt with UPC dated 28.11.2005 to the defendant No.3.
13. Ex PW1/N Copy of postal receipt dated 21.09.2005 with UPC to the defendant No.2 & 3.
14. Ex PW1/O Copy of UPC dated 25.08.2005.
15. Ex PW1/P Copy of received A.D. CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.5/30
16. EX PW1/Q Copy of marriage Card of daughter of deponent dated 12.04.2003
17. Ex PW1/R Copy of cutting of news dated 15- 21.03.2003.
18. EX PW1/S Copy of newspaper dated 19.06.2003 published in newspaper Quami Awaz in Urdu and translated in Hindi.
16. Plaintiff also examined one Sh Iqbal stated to be a known person to him as PW-2 who deposed w.r.t incident of 22.04.2003 and 26.04.2003.
17. During cross examination the said PW-2 deposed that the defendant No.3 arrived at the seen after the quarrel has already taken place.
18. Plaintiff also examined his wife Nasima begum as PW-3.
PART-E (DEFENDANT EVIDENCE)
19. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and did not prove any documents on record.
20. Defendant No.2 & 3 examined themselves as D2W2 and D3W1 respectively who deposed to the effect that they reached the spot on the basis of a PCR Call and also deposed when they reached on the spot they found that the PCR Van officials had already admitted the defendant No.1 in the hospital and based on the statement of the defendant No.1 they arrested the plaintiff.
CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.6/30 PART-F (FINDINGS/CONCLUSION)
21. Heard. Considered.
22. Issue No.1-Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation, as alleged? OPD2.
23. This issue has been framed on account of the preliminary objection taken by the defendant No.1.
24. However, no evidence has been led by the defendant No.1 in this respect.
25. In any other case the appeal against the order dated 08.09.2003 passed by concerned SDM, stand decided by the Ld. ASJ on 23.04.2005, the suit having been filed on 31.05.2006 is hereby held to be filed within the period of limitation.
26. Issue No.1 is decided against the defendants.
27. Issue No.2-Whether suit is liable to be rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC for want of notice u/s 80 of CPC and 140 of Delhi Police Act? OPD2
28. As far as this issue is concerned, the plaintiff has proved on record the legal notice dated 24.08.2005 as Ex PW1/J to PW1/M which include the postal receipt regarding service of prior notice in terms of provisions of section 80 CPC and section 140 of Delhi Police Act.
29. Accordingly, the issue No.2 is decided against the defendants.
CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.7/30 30. Issue No. 3 to 5 (3)-Whether suit is also liable to be dismissed in terms of Section 138 of Delhi Police Act? OPD.
(4) Whether the suit is barred by section 41 (h) of Specific Relief Act? OPD 2 & 3.
(5) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any damage as claimed? OPP
31. 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 CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.8/30 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 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 CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.9/30 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.
(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 CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.10/30 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, 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 CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.11/30 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.
PROSECUTION BY THE DEFENDANT
(j) 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.
(k) This principle was highlighted in Balbhaddar v. Badri Sah, where the Privy Council emphasized that actions CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.12/30 for malicious prosecution can be pursued against private individuals who provide information to authorities leading to prosecution.
(l) 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.
(m) 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.
(n) Similarly, in Pannalal v. Shrikrishna, the court held that liability for malicious prosecution cannot be attributed to individuals who only provided information to the police without actively participating in the prosecution.
(o) 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.
CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.13/30
(p) 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
(q) 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.
(r) 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 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.
(s) 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.
CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.14/30
PROCEEDING BEFORE QUASI-JUDICIAL
BODY
(t) 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.
(u) 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.
(v) 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.
CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.15/30 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.
(w) 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
(x) 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.
(y) 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.
CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.16/30 (z) 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.
(aa) 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.
(bb) 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 not hold, and liability for malicious prosecution may be established.
(cc) 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 CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.17/30 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 (dd) 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.
(ee) 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 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.
CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.18/30 (ff) 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.
(gg) 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.
(hh) 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 legitimacy of their actions.
CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.19/30 TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN FAVOUR OF PLAINTIFF
(ii) 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.
(jj) 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.
(kk) 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, CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.20/30 this position 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.
(ll) 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.
(mm) 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.
(nn) 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.
(oo) Moreover, when government agencies act in good faith in the performance of their official duties, they cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution.
(pp) 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-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.21/30 for compensation in a suit for malicious prosecution, as there was no malice in their actions.
DAMAGE (qq) 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.
(rr) 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.
(ss) 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.
(tt) 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-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.22/30 (uu) 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.
(vv) 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 (ww) 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 prosecution.
CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.23/30 (xx) Malice, refers to the improper motive behind the prosecution, indicating an intent to use the legal process for wrongful purposes rather than seeking justice.
(yy) Furthermore, termination of proceedings in favor of the plaintiff is essential, whether through acquittal, discharge, or discontinuance of the prosecution.
(zz) 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 (aaa) 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.
(bbb) 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.
(ccc) The right to take legal action for defamation is restricted to a period of one year CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.24/30 (ddd) 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:
(eee) 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.
(fff) In case of Criminal Defamation, a private Complaint is filed before the Judicial Magistrate.
(ggg) In Civil Defamation, a person who is defamed can CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.25/30 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.
(hhh) 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, there can no defamation.
v. Defamation on social networking websites:
vi. Social media and networking websites have CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.26/30 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 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 CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.27/30 liability provided such intermediaries acted bonafide or came within the purview of the exemptions envisaged under the amendment.
Some common Defenses/Exceptions to Defamation:
(jjj) 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. Merits of the case decided in court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.
vi. Merits of Public performance.
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.
32. The entire case of the plaintiff rests on the footing that the order dated 08.09.2003 passed by Ld. SDM having CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.28/30 been set aside in appeal vide order dated 23.04.2005 passed by Ld ASJ Ex PW1/I, makes out a case of claim for damages in his favour.
33. The court has gone through the said order dated 23.04.2005 Ex PW1/I passed by Ld ASJ and perusal of the same makes it clear that there is no finding record by the Ld. ASJ to the effect that the legal proceeding initiated by the defendant No.1 suffered from any kind of malicious intent or serve an indirect and improper motive other than the pursuit of justice.
34. Hence, it is very much clear that none of the ingredient qua the malicious prosecution stand fulfilled in the facts and circumstances of the case qua the defendant No.1.
35. As far as defendant No.2 & 3 are concerned they acted in pursuance of their official duties as police officials and accordingly their action are protected by virtue of section 138 of the Delhi Police Act which is reproduced herein as under.
"No Police Officer to be liable to penalty or damage for act done in good faith in pursuance of duty- No Police Officer shall be liable to any penalty or to payment of any damages on account of an act done in good faith in pursuance of or purported to be done in pursuance of any duty imposed or any authority conferred on him by any provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force or any rule, regulation, order or direction made or given thereunder"
CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.29/30
36. Accordingly, issue No.3 is decided in favour of defendant No.2 & 3.
37. In view of the outcome of issue No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 & 3, issue No.4 stand decided as such against the plaintiff.
38. Furthermore, in view of the above discussion, the plaintiff is held as not entitled to any damages and as such issue No.5 is decided against the plaintiff.
39. Issue No.6-Relief.
40. In view of the outcome of issue No.3 & 5, suit of the plaintiff stand dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Ordered accordingly.
Let decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court on 04.01.2025 (Vinay Singhal) District Judge-09 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
04.01.2025 CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.30/30 CS DJ-13638-16 Akhlaq Ahmed Vs Mohd Aziz @ Bhura & Ors Pg.31/30