Delhi District Court
Raisuddine vs Aleena Rais on 28 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AAKASH SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE -02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS SCJ No. 224/2018
In the matter of :-
Sh. Raisuddine,
S/o Sh. Zamiruddin,
R/o 2280, Gali Qasimjan, Ballimaran,
Delhi-110006.
.... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Smt. Aleena Rais,
W/o Sh. Mohd. Rais,
R/o 1824, Chhatta Agha Jan,
Kalan Mahal, Delhi-110006.
....Defendant
Date of Institution: 27.11.2017
Date of reserving the judgment: 14.02.2025
Date of Judgment: 28.02.2025
Final Judgment : Suit Dismissed
JUDGMENT
(Suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards damages)
1. The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff is residing at 2280, Gali Qasimjan, Ballimaran, Delhi-110006 and no criminal or civil case is pending against the plaintiff and he is doing his lawful business of supplying ladies suits, lehnga and chunnies and he is doing his business from last more than 20 years and enjoying good respect in the society. That plaintiff was married to defendant by way of Muslim rites and Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 1 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:06:15 +0530 ceremonies. That Sh. Moinuddine is the brother of the plaintiff. That the defendant left the matrimonial home of plaintiff with her own free will and consent and contracted second marriage without divorce from plaintiff for which plaintiff filed a complaint case under Section 494 IPC which complaint was dismissed however appeal against the said order/judgment is pending for disposal.
1.1 It is further submitted that the defendant has made a false report against plaintiff in crime against women cell of harassment, demand of dowry etc. which report culminated into an FIR No.321/06 under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC from PS Darya Ganj and after that the defendant has alleged that plaintiff was continuously harassing and extending threats to kill the defendant on telephone, and further made reports that when defendant was returning with her mother Smt. Kishwar Begum on 10.12.2006 at 04:30 PM, the plaintiff extended threat to kill her for taking his name in complaint and defendant made a written complaint on 30.12.2006 and a case under Section 506/34 IPC was registered vide FIR No.971/2006 dated 30.12.2006 on her complaint against the plaintiff.
1.2 It is further submitted that plaintiff is an income tax payee and respectable citizen of India and also enjoys good respect and status in the society. That all relatives and friends of plaintiff are also residing near the house of plaintiff and it was greatly shocking and humiliating to plaintiff which caused loss of reputation and goodwill of plaintiff which could not be compensated till date, and some of the persons of the locality passed Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 2 of 39 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:06:26 +0530 some comments against the plaintiff due to the act of defendant filing false complaint and plaintiff began to live sad and was not going openly out in marriages and other parties and functions of the area. That after about 11 years on 14.03.2017, the matter was decided by Hon'ble Court of Sh. Muneesh Garg, Ld. MM-10, Central District, THC, Delhi and acquitted the plaintiff finding defendant complaint as false. That from 13.04.2007, when case was registered for the date of incident which was told as dated 10.12.2006, plaintiff faced investigation and trial for upto about 9 years and 11 months and spent huge amount of money on each and every date and legal charges of the counsel, and there was also a risk of going to jail and bail was sought and after that there was risk of conviction therefore, plaintiff faced serious mental tension, pain and agony. That not only this, from his work, he had to remain absent for days, as and when it was fixed before the Hon'ble Court and also sometime before date to meet the counsel and discuss the case history and facts, a beautiful period of time of the plaintiff wasted due to defendant's false report with ulterior motives as defendant had to marry another man and contracted second marriage without proper divorce.
1.3 It is further submitted that now plaintiff for above malicious prosecution, claims damages to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- for each of the suffering as stated above due to false registration of case, mental tension pain and agony, and also false rumours made in the area after registration of case and affecting adversely on the relations of brothers and sisters in the society. That no revision or appeal against the order of Ld. ACMM was Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 3 of 39 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:06:30 +0530 filed in any court of law by anyone including the defendant and order became final. That the defendant has made deliberate false statements against the plaintiff which caused suffering of loss and injury to his rights and reputation and as damages plaintiff suffered a net loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- as it caused mental pain and agony and tension and there was also a risk of going to jail in vain just due to the malafide intentions and false statements of the defendant. That the plaintiff had to pay to the Advocates for representing him on his part and had to leave his work for so many days and in area there was adverse image developing during the days of false statements and pendency of the criminal trial of the said case and loss of reputation even in schools of children of in-laws as well. That the plaintiff felt ashamed with himself and he was discharged due to the order of the Hon'ble Court otherwise defendant had left no room to send the plaintiff to jail and to falsely implicate him and to take revenge of civil suit filed by the plaintiff. That the defendant is a chronic litigant and of criminal nature, and has made a report falsely, knowing it to be false and has become habitual of making such reports and get advantage of being a woman. That defendant has made the plaintiff a tool to unnecessarily fulfill her lust and design and defamed him causing loss of business to the tune of Rs. 3 Lacs and suffering great mental pain, agony, tension and lost of business without any fault on his part.
1.4 It is further submitted that the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 23.10.2017 at defendant's address as mentioned in the FIR but defendant has left the address and started living at present at another address and this AAKASH CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 4 of 39 SHARMA Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA Date: 2025.02.28 16:06:33 +0530 notice was sent on 29.07.2017 which was duly served upon the defendant but neither sent any reply nor complied with the demand in the notice. That the defendant also failed to tender any unconditional apology and defendant failed to comply the said notice despite lapse of time provided to her. That since the defendant has failed to make the payment inspite of demand notice, the plaintiff is left with no other remedy except to file the present suit. Hence, this suit.
1.5 It is further submitted that causing loss to the reputation of the plaintiff is punishable and is calculated to tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- till date in the form of business loss, loss of reputation causing mental pain and agony/harassment, disturbance of relationship, providing people with competition with plaintiff an opportunity to laugh upon the plaintiff and discussing it in society, and as a whole the said loss has already been made by the defendant by making false allegations, and defendant has committed that offence and is not ready to stop from her said acts and is still making rumour that plaintiff is a cheater, who cheated her despite the fact that nothing has been done by the plaintiff in any form on the basis of his power to spread rumours all around. That the acts of the defendant are unjustified and liable to be punished and compensated as per the provisions of law of damages. That the plaintiff has not condoned the acts of the defendant at any stage. That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose on 10.12.2006 when complaint was made and FIR under Section 506/34 IPC was registered by police officials of PS Darya Ganj vide FIR No.971/2006, however it again arose when plaintiff was acquitted on 14.03.2017 by Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 5 of 39 SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:06:37 +0530 Hon'ble MM. That it was continued when defendant started spreading rumours against the plaintiff that he is a cheater and he had to give the reply to the people all around in different manner, and is continuing till today as the defendant is spreading rumours in the business parties, in and around the residence and working place even with the minor girls studying of the family in schools in and around near relations of in-laws, and brothers, sisters of the plaintiff all falsely to harass and torture the plaintiff, hence the cause of action is continuing and subsisting. That both parties are residing at Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Darya Ganj, District Central, hence this court has jurisdiction to try and entertain and decide the present case. That the act of the defendant is unjustified and liable to be punished as per the provisions of law. That value of the suit is fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- and ad-veloram court fee Rs. 4,296/- pendente-lite has been affixed on the plaint.
Hence, it is prayed that a decree be passed for Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. the principal amount for the loss of reputation alongwith interest @9% per annum pendente-lite and future interest on the principal amount till its realization as well as costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
2. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to defendant on 27.11.2017 and Ld. Counsel for the defendant has appeared on 20.03.2018 and filed written statement, certain documents alongwith list of documents on behalf of the defendant.
Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 6 of 39 SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:06:42 +0530
3. It is averred in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant that the suit filed by the plaintiff is an overt act, clever device and deceitful maneuvering to further unnecessarily harass the defendant without any cause or reason on her part and to extort money from her in an illegal manner, in the garb of present suit. The plaintiff is a convict, had suffered sentence/Rigorous Imprisonment for three years, in case FIR No.189/1998, P.S. Mandir Marg, U/s. 120-B/121/121-A/122/123IPC, and 25/54/59 Arms Act, in terms of judgment of conviction dated 13.03.2001, passed by the court of Sh. S.K. Jain, the then Ld. M.M. at Patiala House Courts, Delhi. A convict cannot claim himself as a respectable citizen of India and/or enjoys good respect and status in the society. Plaintiff is well known about his conduct, dealings and antecedents in the society, neighbourhood and relations. That in view of aforesaid fact of his conviction and suffering rigorous imprisonment for three years, plaintiff is guilty for committing perjury before the Hon'ble Court, by claiming himself a respectable citizen of India and enjoys good respect and status in the society, in the plaint filed before the Hon'ble Court/Judicial Officer, duly supported with affidavit on oath, attested by Oath Commissioner, hence plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted for committing perjury. The defendant also craves indulgence of the Hon'ble Court to kindly refer to agreement/settlement deed dated 26.02.2007, executed between the parties, duly signed and thumb marked by them, on non judicial stamp paper of Rs. 50/-, duly witnessed by two independent witnesses namely Mohd. Nasim, 2261, Kucha Chellan, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110002 and Mohd. Rais, R/o. H.No. 1690, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 and duly attested by Raj Bhardwaj, Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 7 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:06:49 +0530 Notary Public, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
3.1 It is further averred in the written statement that in terms of said agreement/settlement deed, the parties had principally and factually agreed to settle their disputes, claims and complaints against each other.
The defendant had also agreed to withdraw her complainant filed against plaintiff, and to cooperate in getting quashed the FIR Nos. 321 dated 05.05.2006, U/s.34/406/498A IPC, P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi and FIR No.971 dated 30.12.2006, U/s.506/34 IPC, P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi. In terms of agreement/settlement deed dated 26.02.2007, the plaintiff had made it clear that their marriage would automatically stand dissolved and same would amount to triple talaq given by plaintiff to defendant as per Muslim Shariat Law/customs/rites. That as a bonafide gesture and in principal the defendant had settled the dispute with plaintiff, in terms of agreement/settlement deed dated 26.02.2007. That though the plaintiff and his relations had filed Crl. Misc. [Main] No. 858/2007 on 05.03.2007 in terms of agreement/settlement deed dated 26.02.2007 but with a view to further unnecessarily harass, cause hardships, humiliations, mental and physical shock, agonies, torture, pains and sufferings to the defendant, had intentionally and deliberately failed to follow up the same and materialize the agreement/settlement deed dated 26.02.2007 in its true letter and spirit. However, no party had disputed or challenged said agreement/settlement deed before any court of law, police or law enforcing agencies till date. That allegations made in plaint, are self contradictory on the face of them and allegations in para 16 of the plaint are not believable and are Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 8 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:06:53 +0530 improbable on the face of them. As per own allegations notice dated 23.10.2017 [later date to 29.07.2017] was returned back with remarks 'left the given address' and notice dated 29.07.2017 (earlier to 23.10.2017, sent subsequently after knowing that defendant had left address given in notice dated 23.10.2017) was served on defendant, which is next to impossible.
That this fact vitiates entire suit of plaintiff and proves his absolute falsehood. In fact suit has been filed without serving mandatory notice of demand. No alleged notice ever reached to the defendant, nor there is any such evidence on record to this effect.
3.2 It is further averred in written statement that both the parties by considering their marriage having been dissolved, got themselves remarried with persons of their choice. However, the plaintiff with malafide intention to further unnecessarily harass, cause hardships, humiliations, mental and physical shock, agonies, torture, pains and sufferings to the defendant, had filed a false complaint U/s.494 IPC against the defendant, however, same was dismissed on merits. Revision Petition filed by plaintiff against dismissal order of said complaint was also dismissed. The plaintiff is guilty for committing perjury by alleging in the plaint that his appeal against acquittal order is pending, same is supported by his sworn affidavit on oath before Judicial Officer/ Hon'ble Court. That the plaintiff had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the defendant, vide Civil Suit [New No.] 58716/16, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2017, by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, Central, Tis Hazari, Delhi, with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed against plaintiff. However, the Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 9 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:06:56 +0530 plaintiff has failed to pay said cost to the defendant till date, despite repeated requests and demands made by her to him in this regard from time to time. The defendant would accordingly file execution of said decree/order dated 11.09.2017 against the plaintiff before learned court concerned in due date. That with a view to further unnecessarily harass, cause hardships, humiliations, mental and physical shock, agonies, torture, pain and sufferings to the defendant, the plaintiff had also filed a Civil Suit, against the defendant, with her false address, with a view to get a favourable order in his favour, in the back and absence of defendant, with prayer to restrain the defendant from conducting second marriage. However, his said suit was dismissed by the learned court concerned at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 09.07.2007. That in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the defendant is an aggrieved person and victim of plaintiff. He got her married misrepresentations, by intentionally by and deliberately concealing and suppressing his conviction and suffering sentence/Rigorous Imprisonment for three years, in case FIR No.189/1998, P.S. Mandir Marg, U/s.120- B/121/121-A/122/123 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act, in terms of judgment of conviction dated 13.03.2001, passed by the court of Sh. S.K. Jain, the then Ld. M.M. at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. That this was also one of the cause and reason for marital discord between the plaintiff and defendant.
3.3 It is further averred that the plaintiff has intentionally and deliberately suppressed the fact of his conviction and suffering sentence for 3 years. RI; agreement/settlement deed dated 26.02.2007; dismissal of his Digitally CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 10 of 39 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:00 +0530 petition for restitution of conjugal rights, imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- against him by Ld. Court concerned; non payment of said penalty by him to the defendant, filing and dismissal of his suit for injunction against defendant with false address of defendant and has intentionally and deliberately made false allegations, false imputations, accusations and insinuations against the defendant, without any cause or reason on her part, intentionally and deliberately, with malafide and dishonest intention to further harass, cause hardships, humiliations, mental and physical shock and agonies, pains, sufferings etc. to the defendant, not coming forward to implement/materialize agreement/settlement deed dated 26.02.2007 and had filed present suit to extort money from defendant, in an illegal and arbitrary manner. That there is no explanation from plaintiff as to why and under what circumstances he did not turn up for materializing agreement/settlement deed dated 26.02.2007. That even otherwise the learned M.M. in his judgment dated 24.03.2017 has inter-alia held 'I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of any lacunae left in the investigation has to be given to the accused'. That even by considering the judgment of learned trial court, it cannot be said that complaint filed by the defendant against the plaintiff etc. was false or malicious prosecution. Her said complaint was for redress of her just, bonafide and legitimate grievance, complaint, claim and dispute and in exercise of her legal right against the plaintiff. Hence present suit is legally untenable and may kindly be dismissed outrightly. That in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit.
Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 11 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:05 +0530 That in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff is without cause of action therefore, same may kindly be dismissed outrightly under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. r/w Section 151 C.P.C. That suit is bad under Order 6 Rule 2(3) C.P.C. because dates and amount have not been mentioned in both words and figures, as required. That suit has been filed by plaintiff alone. However, in the affidavit he represents himself as one of the plaintiff. Affidavit filed by plaintiff in support of the plaint is not legal and valid. He has not even stated in the affidavit that the 'contents of plaint are true and correct'. He has simply stated that 'the complaint is true on the basis of facts and circumstances'. That in the absence of a legal and valid affidavit sworn by plaintiff in support of his plaint, same is vitiated, legally untenable, may be dismissed outrightly. That suit is not properly and legally verified, in accordance with Rules and Orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, hence is legally unsustainable and liable to be dismissed out rightly. Even as per verification of the plaint suit is without cause of action. In verification the plaintiff has alleged from para 20 to 23 on the basis of information received and believed to be true. Para 20 allegedly represents to cause of action for filing present suit, which the plaintiff has believed to be true on the basis of information received, i.e. he is not certain about cause of action, but believes on information received. Hence suit may be dismissed outrightly. There is no para 23 in the plaint, but he has verified paras 20 to 23 in the plaint.
3.4 It is further averred that the suit filed by the plaintiff is an abuse of the process of law, rather misuse of law of land, has been filed by Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 12 of 39 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:09 +0530 the plaintiff for taking wrongful advantage of his own wrongs and to cause wrongful loss, unnecessary harassment, hardships, humiliations, mental and physicals shock, agonies, torture, pains and sufferings to the defendant, without any cause or reason on her part. That suit has not been properly drafted. Some where plaintiff represents himself one of plaintiff, then me, then client. Hence suit is not understandable and legally not maintainable in the present form, may be dismissed outrightly. That in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief, much less the alleged relief. That the address of defendant given in the plaint is not correct, in fact she is not residing at given address but residing in Mumbai. That apprehending further unnecessary harassment, victimization and discrimination from plaintiff, she scares to furnish her present address of Mumbai. That the defendant filed present written statement on coming to know from her relations about filing of present suit by plaintiff against her. There is no evidence available on record to substantiate allegation of plaintiff about residence of defendant at address given in the plaint. He may be put to strictly prove his allegations in this regard. That under the circumstances, the defendant craves indulgence of the Hon'ble Court to allow her to contest present suit by mentioning her address given in the plaint.
3.5 It is further averred in the written statement that the allegations made in para under reply, as alleged, are wrong and denied; facts stated in preliminary objections are reiterated as correct. It is wrong that plaintiff is enjoying good respect in the society. That as detailed hereto above, the Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 13 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:13 +0530 plaintiff is convict and a convict cannot claim himself of enjoying good respect and status in the society. That plaintiff is well known about his adverse conduct, character, behaviour, dealings, attitude and antecedents. That as regards his business, the plaintiff may be put to strictly prove and there is no evidence on record to substantiate his allegations in this regard. However, the plaintiff got the defendant married, by concealing and suppression his conviction and suffering three years RI in a fraud case, as detailed hereto above, which is one of the cause and reason for marital discord between the parties. That mentioning the name of his brother in present case is irrelevant and allegations made are wrong and are denied. That it is wrong that defendant had left the plaintiff on her own free will. That allegations are self contradictory to facts stated in agreement/ settlement deed dated 26.02.2007 wherein the plaintiff has admitted "whereas some differences arose between the parties".
True facts, cause and reason for marital discord are that the defendant was subjected to immense, utmost, intolerable and unbearable cruelty, harassment, hardships, humiliations, mental and physical shock, agonies, torture, pains and sufferings etc., without any cause or reason on her part, for bringing less dowry, demand of more and more dowry, his criminal and violent conduct and aggressive behaviour, temperament. That the plaintiff has intentionally and deliberately not filed the order of dismissal of his complaint. Dismissal of his complaint U/s.494 IPC proves that his allegations are false and self created. Revision filed by plaintiff against defendant against dismissal order of complaint has also been dismissed. The plaintiff has intentionally and deliberately concealed and Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 14 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:16 +0530 suppressed this fact from the Hon'ble Court. It is wrong that complaints filed by the defendant against the plaintiff were false. That facts stated in the complaints on the basis of which FIR No. 32/2006, U/s. 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi and FIR No. 971/2006, P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi, U/s. 506/34 IPC are reiterated as correct which were filed by the defendant for redress of her just, bonafide and legitimate grievance, complaint and dispute against the plaintiff etc. It is wrong that plaintiff is enjoying good respect in the society. That the plaintiff is well known about his adverse conduct, character, behaviour, dealings, attitude and antecedents and he may be put to strictly prove to substantiate his allegations that he is income tax payee. There is no evidence on record to substantiate his allegations in this regard. It is wrong that plaintiff has suffered any shock or humiliation from his relatives and friends; suffered any loss to his goodwill, reputation, suffered adverse comments from neighbours, due to said comments he had avoided attending marriages, functions, parties and coming out open due to registration of FIR on the complaint of defendant against him. That facts stated in the complaints of defendant against plaintiff etc are reiterated as correct. That plaintiff is well known about his adverse conduct, character, behaviour, dealings, attitude and antecedents. Most probably for his aforesaid adverse conduct, dealings, attitude, behavour and antecedents, he might have felt himself guilty and shameful in the society, relations, neighbourhood and locality. For this the defendant cannot be held liable. However, defendant has been cheated and defrauded by the plaintiff. That complaints filed by defendant against the plaintiff etc. were for redress of her just, bonafide and legitimate grievance, Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 15 of 39 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:19 +0530 complaint and dispute against the plaintiff etc. Contents of para under reply are not disputed. The learned M.M. in his judgment dated 24.03.2017 has inter-alia held "I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of any lacunae left in the investigation has to be given to the accused'. That even by considering the judgment of learned trial court, it cannot be said that complaint filed by the defendant against the plaintiff etc. was false or malicious prosecution. That the learned M.M. in his judgment dated 24.03.2017 has inter-alia held "I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
The benefit of any lacunae left in the investigation has to be given to the accused'. Even by considering the judgment of learned trial court, it cannot be said that complaint filed by the defendant against the plaintiff etc. was false or malicious prosecution. It is wrong that complaint filed by the defendant was false, frivolous or malicious prosecution which was filed for redress of her just, bonafide and legitimate grievance, complaint and dispute against the plaintiff etc. The defendant was also forced to suffer a lot of time, money, anxiety, beside hardships, humiliations, mental and physical pain and sufferings for prosecuting said complaints, without any cause or reason. For defending his own wrongs, the plaintiff cannot blame the defendant.
3.6 It is further averred that the allegations made are wrong and are denied. It is wrong that complaint filed by the defendant was false, frivolous or malicious prosecution which was filed for redress of her just, Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 16 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:23 +0530 bonafide and legitimate grievance, complaint and dispute against the plaintiff. Filing complaint for redress of her just, bonafide and legitimate claim, complaint and dispute against criminal acts of plaintiff, in due course, before competent forum, court, in exercise of her legal right, cannot be taken as malicious prosecution. Only because plaintiff has been given benefit of doubt, due to lacunae in investigation by the prosecution, as held by learned court, the complaints of defendant against the plaintiff cannot be taken as false or malicious prosecution. That in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances the plaintiff is neither entitled nor the defendant is liable or can be held liable to pay to plaintiff any amount, much less Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages. That allegations are misleading, malafide and dishonest and made with a view to unnecessarily further harass the defendant. Being victim of circumstances, a house hold lady, presently residing in Mumbai, having already suffered a lot of time, money, anxiety, beside hardships, humiliations, mental and physical pain and sufferings for prosecuting said complaints, without any cause or reason on her part, she does not have any courage, stamina and patience to prosecute the plaintiff by filing appeal in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, involving further lot of time, energy, money and hardships. Further as a bonafide gesture and in principal the defendant had settled the dispute with plaintiff, in terms of agreement/settlement deed dated 26.02.2007. Though the plaintiff and his relations had filed Crl. Misc. [Main] No. 858/2007 on 5.03.2007 in terms of agreement/settlement deed dated 26.02.2007 but intentionally and deliberately failed to follow up the same and materialize the agreement/settlement deed 26.02.2007 in its true letter and spirit. For this no adverse inference can be drawn. That facts Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 17 of 39 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:27 +0530 stated in the complaints of defendant, on the basis of which FIRs., have been registered against the plaintiff etc., are reiterated as correct. It is wrong to say that plaintiff has suffered any loss or injury, damage to his rights and reputation, mental pain, agony, tension. One has to suffer for his own wrongs, for this the defendant cannot be blamed or held liable. It is wrong to say that defendant had any malafide intention or has given any false statement which was filed for redress of her just, bonafide and legitimate grievance, complaint and dispute against the plaintiff. Filing complaint for redress of her just, bonafide and legitimate claim, complaint and dispute against criminal acts of plaintiff, in due course, before competent forum court, in exercise of her legal right, cannot be taken as malicious prosecution. That only because plaintiff has been given benefit of doubt, due to lacunae in investigation by the prosecution, as held by learned court, the complaints of defendant against the plaintiff cannot be taken as false or malicious prosecution. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances the plaintiff is neither entitled nor the defendant is liable or can be held liable to pay to plaintiff any amount, much less Rs.2,00,000/-as damages. That allegations are misleading, malafide and dishonest and made with a view to unnecessary further harass the defendant.
3.7 It is further averred that the facts stated in the complaints of defendant, on the basis of which FIRs., have been registered against the plaintiff etc., are reiterated as correct. It is wrong that the plaintiff has suffered loss of work for consulting and briefing his Advocate suffering adverse image in the vicinity where he resides, loss of reputation in schools Digitally CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 18 of 39 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:31 +0530 of his children, as alleged. One has to suffer for his own wrongs, for this the defendant cannot be blamed or held liable. It is wrong that defendant had given any false statement. The defendant was also forced to suffer a lot of time, money, anxiety, beside hardships, humiliations, mental and physical pain and sufferings for prosecuting said complaints, without any cause or reason. That for defending his own wrongs, the plaintiff cannot blame the defendant. That the facts stated in the complaints on the basis of which FIR was lodged against plaintiff etc. are reiterated as correct which was filed for redress of her. just, bonafide and legitimate grievance, complaint and dispute against the plaintiff. Filing complaint for redress of her just, bonafide and legitimate claim, complaint and dispute against criminal acts of plaintiff, in due course, before competent forum, court, in exercise of her legal right, cannot be taken as malicious prosecution. Only because plaintiff has been given benefit of doubt due to lacunae in investigation by the prosecution, as held by learned court, the complaints of defendant against the plaintiff cannot be taken as false or malicious prosecution. That it is wrong that the defendant is a chronic litigant and has filed false complaint against plaintiff for her advantage. That the facts stated in the complaints on the basis of which FIR was lodged against plaintiff etc. are reiterated as correct. Same was filed for redress of her just, bonafide and legitimate grievance, complaint and dispute against the plaintiff. That it is wrong to say that the defendant had made the plaintiff as her tool. That it is wrong that defendant has defamed the plaintiff and caused him loss of business worth Rs. 3,00,000/-. That the facts stated in the complaints on the basis of which FIR was lodged against plaintiff etc. Digitally CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 19 of 39 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:35 +0530 are reiterated as correct. Same was filed for redress of her just, bonafide and legitimate grievance, complaint and dispute against the plaintiff. Allegations made in para under reply, are self contradictory on the face of them. That the allegations are not believable and improbable on the face of them. That as per own allegations notice dated 23.10.2017 [later date to 29.07.2017] was returned back with remarks 'left the given address'] and notice dated 29.07.2017 [earlier to 23.10.2017, sent subsequently after knowing that defendant had left address given in notice dated 23.10.2017] was served on defendant, which is next to impossible. This fact vitiates entire suit of plaintiff and proves his absolute falsehood. In fact suit has been filed without serving mandatory notice of demand. No alleged notice ever reached to the defendant, nor there is any such evidence on record to this effect as alleged, are wrong and are denied. That it is wrong to say that the complaint filed by the defendant was unjustifiable litigation. Same was settled amicably with kind intervention of learned trial court through mediation. The suit filed by the plaintiff is malafide, dishonest and without any legal substance. He is not entitled for any relief. That it is wrong that defendant is liable to tender apology to the plaintiff. When defendant has not committed anything wrong question of tendering any apology by defendant to plaintiff never arose, does not arise. That when no alleged notice ever reached to the defendant, question of giving any reply to the same by her never arose, does not arise. That in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the defendant cannot be held liable to comply with alleged notice. That the allegations and claim of plaintiff are malafide and self created.
Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 20 of 39 2025.02.28 16:07:38 +0530 3.8 It is further averred that the facts stated in the complaints of defendant, on the basis of which FIRs, have been registered against the plaintiff etc., are reiterated as correct. It is wrong to say that plaintiff has suffered any loss or injury, damage to his rights and reputation, mental pain, agony, tension, business loss, disturbance of relationship, adverse remarks from people, due to complaints made by defendant against her. He is convict for cheating and suffered RI for three yrs. for cheating and fraud as detailed above. One has to suffer for his, own wrongs, for this the defendant cannot be blamed or held liable. It is wrong to say that defendant had given any false statement. Complaints filed by defendant were for redress of her just, bonafide and legitimate grievance, complaint and dispute against the plaintiff. Filing complaint for redress of her just, bonafide and legitimate claim, complaint and dispute against criminal acts of plaintiff, in due course, before competent forum, court, in exercise of her legal right, cannot be taken as malicious prosecution. Only because plaintiff has been given benefit of doubt, due to lacunae in investigation by the prosecution, as held by learned court, the complaints of defendant against the plaintiff cannot be taken as false or malicious prosecution. That in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is neither entitled nor the defendant is liable or can be held liable to pay to plaintiff any amount, much less Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages. That the allegations are malafide, misleading, self created, uncalled for and without substance.
When the defendant has not committed anything wrong against the plaintiff, question of condoning her aforesaid act by the plaintiff never Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 21 of 39 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:42 +0530 arose, does not arise. That suit of the plaintiff being without cause of action may kindly be dismissed outrightly, with exemplary costs. That no cause of action for filing present suit ever accrued to the plaintiff much less on 10.12.2006, 14.03.2017 or any other date. Subject to submissions made hereto above, territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is not disputed.
Suit being without cause of action, infructuous and self created, may be dismissed outrightly. That plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Prayers of the plaint are self created, infructuous, uncalled for, without substance. Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. That the suit is without cause of action, infructuous, legally not sustainable, reliefs sought by the plaintiff are not available to him. Reliefs are also imaginary and legally untenable. It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed outrightly with exemplary costs in favour of defendant.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 18.07.2019.
1. Whether the defendant has maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.
2,00,000/- i.e. damages for loss of reputation alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @9% per annum, as prayed for? OPP.
3. Relief.
5. Defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 22 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:46 +0530 Section 151 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint and the said application was dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2022. Defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.05.2023 as defendant did not appear despite repeated calls.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6. In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as witness. Plaintiff stepped into witness box as PW-1. He relied upon the following documents: -
i) Ex.PW1/1 is the copy of Nikahnama, which was de-exhibited and marked as Mark A.
ii) Ex.PW1/1-A is its translation.
iii) Ex.PW1/2 is the copy of the FIR.
iv) Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) is the copy of Aadhar Card.
v) Ex.PW1/4 is the copy of the certified copy of the order dated
24.03.2017,which was de-exhibited and marked as Mark B.
vi) Ex.PW1/5 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 23.10.2017.
vii) Ex.PW1/6 is the postal receipt.
Defendant was already ex-parte vide order dated 25.05.2023.
6.1 Plaintiff got examined summoned witness Sh. Vinay Kumar, J.A., Record Room (Crl), THC, Delhi as PW-2, who deposed that he had Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 23 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:51 +0530 brought the summoned record i.e. the original file of the case bearing FIR no.971/06, under Section 506/34 IPC titled as "State Vs. Raisuddin & Anr"
and the judgment dated 24.03.2017 passed by the court of Sh. Muneesh Garg, Ld. MM-10, Central District, THC, Delhi against the Goshwara No. 04/2017, PS Darya Ganj, Delhi. The copy of the same was already on record as Ex.PW2/1(Colly 18 pages) (OSR).
Defendant was already ex-parte vide order dated 25.05.2023. Plaintiff closed his ex-parte PE on 23.03.2024.
FINDINGS
7. The findings are as under: -
1. Whether the defendant has maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.
2,00,000/- i.e. damages for loss of reputation alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @9% per annum, as prayed for? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. The burden of proving the issue framed in the present suit was on plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged that he is residing at 2280, Gali Qasimjan, Ballimaran, Delhi-110006 and no criminal or civil case is pending against the plaintiff and he is doing his lawful business of supplying ladies suits, lehnga and chunnies and he is doing his business from last more than 20 years and enjoying good respect in the society. Plaintiff has alleged that he was married to defendant by way of Muslim rites and ceremonies. That Sh.
Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 24 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:07:55 +0530 Moinuddine is the brother of the plaintiff. That the defendant left the matrimonial home of plaintiff with her own free will and consent and contracted second marriage without divorce from plaintiff for which plaintiff filed a complaint case under Section 494 IPC which complaint was dismissed however appeal against the said order/judgment is pending for disposal. Plaintiff has further alleged that the defendant has made a false report against plaintiff in crime against women cell of harassment, demand of dowry etc. which report culminated into an FIR No.321/06 under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC from PS Darya Ganj and after that the defendant has alleged that plaintiff was continuously harassing and extending threats to kill the defendant on telephone, and further made reports that when defendant was returning with her mother Smt. Kishwar Begum on 10.12.2006 at 04:30 PM, the plaintiff extended threat to kill her for taking his name in complaint and defendant made a written complaint on 30.12.2006 and a case under Section 506/34 IPC was registered vide FIR No.971/2006 dated 30.12.2006 on her complaint against the plaintiff.
Plaintiff has further alleged that plaintiff is an income tax payee and respectable citizen of India and also enjoys good respect and status in the society. That all relatives and friends of plaintiff are also residing near the house of plaintiff and it was greatly shocking and humiliating to plaintiff which caused loss of reputation and goodwill of plaintiff which could not be compensated till date, and some of the persons of the locality passed some comments against the plaintiff due to the act of defendant filing false complaint and plaintiff began to live sad and was not going openly out in marriages and other parties and functions of the area. Plaintiff has further Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 25 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:01 +0530 alleged that after about 11 years on 14.03.2017, the matter was decided by Hon'ble Court of Sh. Muneesh Garg, Ld. MM-10, Central District, THC, Delhi and acquitted the plaintiff finding defendant complaint as false. That from 13.04.2007, when case was registered for the date of incident which was told as dated 10.12.2006, plaintiff faced investigation and trial for upto about 9 years and 11 months and spent huge amount of money on each and every date and legal charges of the counsel, and there was also a risk of going to jail and bail was sought and after that there was risk of conviction therefore, plaintiff faced serious mental tension, pain and agony. Plaintiff has further alleged that not only this, from his work, he had to remain absent for days, as and when it was fixed before the Hon'ble Court and also sometime before date to meet the counsel and discuss the case history and facts, a beautiful period of time of the plaintiff wasted due to defendant's false report with ulterior motives as defendant had to marry another man and contracted second marriage without proper divorce. Plaintiff for above malicious prosecution, claims damages to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- for each of the suffering as stated above due to false registration of case, mental tension pain and agony, and also false rumours made in the area after registration of case and affecting adversely on the relations of brothers and sisters in the society. Plaintiff has further alleged that no revision or appeal against the order of Ld. ACMM was filed in any court of law by anyone including the defendant and order became final. That the defendant has made deliberate false statements against the plaintiff which caused suffering of loss and injury to his rights and reputation and as damages plaintiff suffered a net loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- as it caused mental pain and Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 26 of 39 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:05 +0530 agony and tension and there was also a risk of going to jail in vain just due to the malafide intentions and false statements of the defendant. Plaintiff has further alleged that the plaintiff had to pay to the Advocates for representing him on his part and had to leave his work for so many days and in area there was adverse image developing during the days of false statements and pendency of the criminal trial of the said case and loss of reputation even in schools of children of in-laws as well. That the plaintiff felt ashamed with himself and he was discharged due to the order of the Hon'ble Court otherwise defendant had left no room to send the plaintiff to jail and to falsely implicate him and to take revenge of civil suit filed by the plaintiff.
9. Now, perusal of Ex.PW2/1 (OSR) (Colly 18 pages) which is the certified copy of judgment dated 24.03.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Muneesh Garg, Ld. MM-10, Central, THC, Delhi shows that the Ld. Court therein has observed in para no.11 of the judgment that there was a delay of 20 days in the registration of FIR as the complaint reflected that the complainant/defendant herein approached police and gave intimation regarding the incident for the first time on 30.12.2006 and it is mentioned in the complaint that complainant was scared and as a result, she did not complain to the police on the same day. The Ld. Court further observed that complainant made a volte face during her testimony and stated as contrary to the prosecution story that she had reported the matter to police on 11.12.2006 i.e. on the day subsequent to the alleged occurrence and insisted upon court query, that she had visited the police station on Digitally CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 27 of 39 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:09 +0530 11.12.2006 but admitted that complaint in question was recorded on 30.12.2006. The Ld. Court further observed that none of the police witnesses deposed that complainant had visited police station on 11.12.2006 and there is no document placed or proved on record in support of the averment of the complainant. The Ld. Court further observed that even PW-2 therein i.e. mother of the defendant had nowhere deposed that she and the complainant had been to the police station on 11.12.2006, as asserted by the complainant/defendant herein. The Ld. Court further observed that there is a strong possibility that complainant/defendant herein lied regarding her such visit on 11.12.2006. The Ld. Court further observed that it was baffling to note that PW-1 therein i.e. father of the defendant deposed during his cross-examination that statement of his daughter was recorded in his presence on the next day of incident since if the statement was recorded on next day how come the document i.e. complaint Ex.PW3/A bore the date 30.12.2006? The Ld. Court further observed that there is no such document on record as asserted by PW-1/father of the defendant to have been recorded on 11.12.2006 and even PW-3/defendant did not claim that any statement of hers was recorded on 11.12.2006. The Ld. Court further observed that there were discrepancies and contradictions in testimonies of PW-2/mother of defendant and PW-3/defendant and that testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 were not a reliable and hence, the possibility of false implication on account of past animosity cannot be ruled out. In conclusion, the Ld. Court further observed that "I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of any lacunae, left in the Digitally CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 28 of 39 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:13 +0530 investigation, has to be given to the accused. For the foregoing reasons, accused is entitled to acquittal. Accused Raisuddin and Moinuddin are acquitted for the offence under Section 506/34 IPC."
10. As already stated, the present suit has been instituted by plaintiff seeking damages and compensation from defendant on account of malicious prosecution for losses suffered by plaintiff in terms of money and reputation for filing false criminal case by defendant against plaintiff. In an action for malicious prosecution, plaintiff must prove the following ingredients:-
(i) That he was prosecuted by the defendant. That the proceedings complained of terminated in favor of the plaintiff if from their nature they were capable of so terminating.
(ii) That the prosecution was instituted against him without any reasonable or probable cause.
(iii) That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of carrying the law into effect, but with an intention which was wrongful in point of fact.
(iv) That he has suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to the security of his property.
11. In Tarwinder Kumar Bedi v. Jit Parkash (2014 SCC Online P&H 20259) the Hon'ble P&H High Court has held that: "6. In order to Digitally CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 29 of 39 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:16 +0530 succeed in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, plaintiff has to prove:-
(a) that the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant;
(b) that the prosecution ended in favour of plaintiff;
(c) that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause;
(d) that the defendant was actuated by malice."
Further, the Hon'ble High Court in para no. 9 of its judgment has observed as follows:-
"....The onus to prove that the proceedings were initiated without any reasonable cause is always on the person who asserts in affirmative i.e. the plaintiff in the present case who seeks damages on account of alleged false accusation. The conditions precedent for filing the suit for malicious prosecutions are the aforesaid conditions which should coexist before the defendant in a suit for malicious prosecution can be burdened with liability. No doubt it is true that the acquittal of a person in a criminal case sometimes gives presumption that there was no reasonable cause for his prosecution, but this presumption is rebuttable in nature and there cannot be any universally accepted phenomenon that in case prosecution fails then the accused would be entitled for damages. Otherwise in all those cases where prosecution fails, would give rise to damages in favour of the accused. In view of this, it would be more in consonance with justice and equity to weigh the lodging of accusation on the threshold of principles as enumerated above. The question which has been Digitally CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 30 of 39 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:20 +0530 posed for consideration before the court is whether the prosecution lodged against the person before a criminal court of law, if found having been instituted falsely or maliciously can lay the foundation for filing suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The proposition has been seen in the context of complicity whether simply, setting the criminal law in motion on account of presentation of complaint (whether the same is found false subsequently) gives arise to any cause of action. If the action is dismissed by the court in the very inception as the same does not disclose any complicity, then in such eventuality, the finding of the criminal court cannot be presumed to be conclusive in nature. The second situation arises, where acquittal is recorded by the Court or a complaint is dismissed on the ground that it does not disclose any cognizable offence. The findings recorded in such process may or may not have contained a finding that the prosecution case is based on falsehood and is thus frivolous.
Recording of such findings are only for the purpose of dismissal of the complaint or criminal prosecution. A sharp distinction has to be drawn between the aforesaid course and the course which is required for an action for a malicious prosecution. In an action for malicious prosecution if the ingredients as mentioned above are not satisfied, then the courts are not obliged to connect the lis simply on the basis of alleged accusation based on filing of the complaint simpliciter. The court is required to record finding in an action for malicious prosecution on all the aforesaid ingredients with reference to evidence on record...."
12. The meaning of malice and malicious prosecution has been Digitally CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 31 of 39 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:23 +0530 explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray (2007) 14 SCC 568 as follows:-
"Malicious Prosecution Malice. Malice means an improper or indirect motive other than a desire to vindi - cate public justice or a private right. It need not necessarily be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill-will. It may be due to a desire to obtain a collateral advantage. The principles to be borne in mind in the case of actions for malicious prosecutions are these:Malice is not merely the doing a wrongful act intentionally but it must be established that the defendant was actuated by mains animus, that is to say, by spite of ill- will or any indirect or improper motive. But if the defendant had reasonable or probable cause of launching the criminal prosecution no amount of malice will make him liable for damages. Reasonable and probable cause must be such as would operate on the mind of a discreet and reasonable man; 'malice' and 'want of reasonable and probable cause.' have reference to the state of the defendant's mind at the date of the initiation of criminal proceedings and the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove them.
13. Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Tirlok Chand Bansal v. Bharat Bhushan Bansal (decided on 23.03.2017) has observed as follows:-
"22. In my view all prosecutions ending in an acquittal cannot be said to be malicious. I have in Sannam Bharti Vs. D.T.C. 2013 SCC Online Del 3104 and in Akbar Ali Vs. State 2014 SCC Online Del 1547 held so. There is no presumption in law of a prosecution ending in an acquittal being malicious. Thus a plaint in a suit for Digitally CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 32 of 39 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:27 +0530 compensation for malicious prosecution merely stating that the plaintiff was prosecuted by or at the instance of the defendant and was acquitted, would not disclose a cause of action.
23. There can be manifold reasons for acquittal. Every acquittal is not a consequence of the prosecution being malicious. It cannot be lost sight of that the remedy of compensation has been provided for "malicious prosecution" and not for "wrongful or uncalled for or failed prosecution".
24. Black‟s Law Dictionary Eight Edition defines „malice‟ as the intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act and as reckless disregard of the law or of a person‟s legal rights and ill will or wickedness of heart. It defines „malicious prosecution‟ as the institution of a criminal or civil proceeding for an improper purpose and without probable cause. The tort of malicious prosecution requires proof of (a) initiation or continuation of a lawsuit; (b) lack of probable cause; (c) malice; and, (d) and favorable termination of lawsuit. The plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution has to necessarily disclose in the plaint the ulterior reason or purpose for which the defendant prosecuted him."
14. In light of aforesaid legal principles and discussion, it is observed that plaintiff in order to succeed in the present suit has to prove the ingredients of malicious prosecution as mentioned above. In the present case, no doubt the ingredients of prosecution by defendant under Section 506/34 IPC and termination in favor of plaintiff has been duly shown by plaintiff, however, other ingredients, that is, institution of prosecution without any reasonable doubt or probable cause, malicious intention, and damage/loss suffered by plaintiff have not been shown and proved. Plaintiff has deposed as PW-1 that the present suit for malicious prosecution and AAKASH CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 33 of 39 SHARMA Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA Date: 2025.02.28 16:08:31 +0530 causing loss to the reputation of the plaintiff and seeking damages to tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the form of business loss, loss of reputation causing mental pain and agony/harassment, disturbance of relationship, providing people with competition with plaintiff an opportunity to laugh upon the plaintiff and discussing it in society, and by making false allegations, and defendant being not ready to stop from her said acts and still making rumour that plaintiff is a cheater; however, in order to establish the same, plaintiff has only produced Ex.PW1/1 i.e. the copy of Nikahnama, which was de-exhibited and marked as Mark A, Ex.PW1/1-A i.e. translation of Nikahnama, Ex.PW1/2 i.e. copy of the FIR No.971/2006, Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) i.e. copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff, Ex.PW1/4 i.e. copy of the certified copy of the order dated 24.03.2017, which was de-exhibited and marked as Mark B, Ex.PW1/5 i.e. office copy of the legal notice dated 23.10.2017 and Ex.PW1/6 i.e. the postal receipt. The plaintiff has also got produced the original file of the case bearing FIR no.971/06, under Section 506/34 IPC titled as "State Vs. Raisuddin & Anr" and the judgment dated 24.03.2017 passed by the court of Sh. Muneesh Garg, Ld. MM-10, Central District, THC, Delhi against the Goshwara No. 04/2017, PS Darya Ganj, Delhi, which was already on record as Ex.PW2/1(Colly 18 pages) (OSR). Perusal of the judgment dated 24.03.2017 shows that the plaintiff and his brother Sh. Mouniddin were acquitted for offence u/s 506/34 IPC on the basis of benefit of reasonable doubt, delay of 20 days in registration of FIR, lacunae in police investigation, lack of independent public witness, discrepancies and contradictions in testimonies of PW-2/mother of defendant and PW-3/defendant and past enmity due to marital discord and possibility of Digitally CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 34 of 39 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:36 +0530 false implication which was probable defence taken by accused which could not be ruled out. In the said judgment, the Ld. Court has not given any finding that defendant had initiated a false and frivolous case against plaintiff out of malice and without any reasonable cause. Further, mere acquittal of plaintiff does not mean that defendant had initiated a false and frivolous case against plaintiff out of malice and without just and reasonable cause. It was for the plaintiff to show and prove that defendant had initiated a malicious prosecution and caused loss to the reputation of the plaintiff with damages to tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the form of business loss, loss of reputation causing mental pain and agony/harassment, disturbance of relationship, providing people with competition with plaintiff an opportunity to laugh upon the plaintiff and discussing it in society, and defendant being not ready to stop from her said acts and still making rumour that plaintiff is a cheater causing his reputation to be lowered in the estimation of his known professional circle, friends and relations, by leading evidence in the present suit as findings of criminal court by themselves are not evidence of malice or lack of reasonable and probable cause and it is for civil court to look into evidence and decide if any malice existed or not. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Deepak Rathaur & anr v. Shashi Bhushan Lal Dass (2016 SCC Online Del 5319), wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on this point has observed that:
"8. The issue therefore is as to whether on account of the appellants/plaintiffs being acquitted in the criminal case this by itself can show that there is malicious prosecution of the appellants/plaintiffs by the respondent/defendant. In my opinion, the answer to that has to be in the negative CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 35 of 39 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:39 +0530 because mere fact that there has been acquittal in the criminal case will not automatically prove malicious prosecution in as much as what is relevant to succeed in a civil suit for seeking damages for malicious prosecution is that it must be found that a criminal complaint case or an FIR was initiated without reasonable and probable cause."
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra (Smt.) (2009) 13 SCC 729 has held that judgment in a criminal case between the parties which has resulted in acquittal is not binding on the civil court and any finding in the criminal proceedings by no stretch of imagination would be binding between civil proceedings :-
"23. It brings us to the question as to whether previous judgment of a criminal proceeding would be relevant in a suit. Section 40 of the Evidence Act reads as under:
"Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial-- The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Courts from taking Cognizance of a suit or holding a trial is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial." This principle would, therefore, be applicable, inter alia, if the suit is found to be barred by the principle of res judicata or by reason of the provisions of any other statute. It does not lay down that a judgment of the criminal court would be admissible in the civil court for its relevance is limited. (See Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad 2009 5 SCALE 527). The judgment of a criminal court in a civil proceeding will only have limited application, viz., inter alia, for the purpose as to who was the accused and what was the result of the criminal proceedings. Any finding in a criminal proceeding by no stretch of imagination would be binding in a civil proceeding."
Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 36 of 39 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:43 +0530
16. Reverting to the present suit, plaintiff has relied upon the judgment dated 24.03.2017 of the Ld. Court of Sh. Muneesh Garg, then MM-10, Central District, THC, Delhi wherein he and his brother Sh. Moinuddin were acquitted and no witness other than plaintiff and summoned witness Sh. Vinay Kumar, J.A. Record Room, (Crl.) THC, Delhi to prove the record of the judgment dated 24.03.2017 i.e. Ex.PW2/1 in FIR No.971/06 has been examined. It is pertinent to observe that the plaintiff has cited as many as seven witnesses in the list of plaintiff witnesses and has also cited at serial no.7 one Mr. Anis Ahmed, Area Resident but has not taken steps to examine them in his evidence. Even Sh. Mohd. Amiq who was examined as DW-1 in the FIR No.971/06 at the behest of the plaintiff in his defence has not been examined to prove the falsehood of the complaint in FIR No.971/06, nor he is cited as a witness in the present suit. Even the brother of the plaintiff namely Sh. Mouniddin has not been cited as a witness in the present suit in the list of witnesses filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not examined any independent witness apart from himself to establish the malice, or reasonable or probable cause as well as damage/ loss suffered by plaintiff due to institution of the criminal case by defendant. Further, plaintiff has also failed to examine any witness from his professional circle, friends and relatives to show that due to rumours and remarks and false criminal case u/s 506/34 IPC filed by defendant, his reputation amongst these people/circle has lowered and thus he has suffered in terms of money and reputation and is further likely to suffer in future also. Furthermore, plaintiff has also not filed any balance sheet, profit and loss account of any year in the present suit to show that he has Digitally signed by CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 37 of 39 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:47 +0530 suffered any business loss due to filing of case by the defendant. Thus, it was for the plaintiff to prove that he has suffered damages and great pain, agony, shock and mental torture as well as financial losses, which also caused his reputation to be lowered in the estimation of his known professional circle, friends and relations, however, none of these has been substantiated by requisite evidence by plaintiff. Plaintiff has, thus, merely made allegations without any material to substantiate the same. Mere acquittal in criminal case would not always automatically lead to the inference that there was malicious prosecution or defamation of plaintiff by defendant. The burden to prove the reasonable and probable cause as well as damage/loss suffered lies upon the plaintiff by proving the facts afresh and he cannot merely rely upon the criminal judgment passed in his favour as the judgment of criminal court in a civil proceeding will only have limited application for the purpose as to who was the accused and what was the result of the criminal proceedings, and any finding in a criminal proceeding would not be binding in a civil proceeding. Hence, the fact that plaintiff has been acquitted is not prima facie evidence that the charge was unreasonable and false. The proceedings in a criminal court are not evidence in a civil court and in a suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution, the production of the judgment in criminal case is not sufficient for plaintiff to discharge the burden of proving want of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. Further, malice is not to be inferred merely from the acquittal of plaintiff, and plaintiff must prove independently of acquittal that his prosecution was malicious and without reasonable and probable cause. In view of this, the issues no.1 and 2 are Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 38 of 39 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28 16:08:51 +0530 decided as hereunder:-
1. Whether the defendant has maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff? OPP. Held:- Plaintiff has failed to prove the ingredients of malice and prosecution without reasonable and probable cause.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.
2,00,000/- i.e. damages for loss of reputation alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @9% per annum, as prayed for? OPP. Held:- No finding is given in favour of plaintiff in view of the finding in issue no.1.
RELIEF
17. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.02.28
16:08:56 +0530
Announced in the open (Aakash Sharma)
court today on 28.02.2025 Civil Judge -02 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Note: This Judgment contains 39 pages and all pages have been
checked and signed by me.
CS No. 224/2018 Raisuddine Vs. Aleena Rais Page 39 of 39