Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. That this complainant would not have sworn and sent the said affidavit to the accused persons if he could know their such dishonest intention of cheating the complainant. Detailed evidence shall be adduced at the time of trial."

This complaint was marked by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Asansol to the local police for investigation and report. The statement of the complaint submitted by the Investigation Officer to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Asansol does not indicate the manner in which the appellant could be said to have been connected with any offence and yet the appellant was arrested at Chandigarh and released in custody for about two hours. The appellant appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Asansol on April 6, 1962, and it is stated that he continued to attended that Court for about two years when he was discharged on the ground that no prima facie case had been made out against him. The proceedings against Shri B. S. Dhillon of Messrs P. L. Sahni, the property Dealers, also resulted in his acquittal.

17. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel that the respondent had utilized the facts constituting a civil action for making a criminal complaint against the appellant is also without any substance. In Ram Nath v. Bashir-ud-Din, AIR 1953 Punj 213, it has been held that if the defendant has a reasonable and probable cause for setting the criminal law in motion the mere fact that he might have pursued a civil remedy cannot render him liable for malicious prosecution.

18. The circumstance that the proceedings were instituted at Asansol instead of being instituted at Chandigarh also does not help the appellant. It is the admitted case of the parties that the negotiations regarding the sale of the plot were made with the respondent while he was posted at Asansol. The cheque in respect of the sale price was also sent to him and was dishonoured at Asansol. In K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 266, it was held that whereas "the misrepresentation by the accused was at Simla and the consequence was at Lahore as the Government of Burma was induced by the misrepresentation to deliver property at Lahore, the offence of cheating by the accused could have been tried either at Lahore or at Simla."

In Narain Das v. Prem Chand, (1931) 132 Ind Cas 864 (Lah), 'A' owed 'B' a certain sum of money. He sent a letter insured for Rs. 400/- to 'B' through the Post Office addressed to a place in the Gujarat District intending to use the receipt given to the Post Office by 'B' as proof to discharge of the debt. 'A' filed a complaint against 'B' in the Court of a Magistrate at Gujarat. Cold-stream, J., held that the Court at Gujarat had jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 177 and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A similar proposition of law was also laid down by the Chief Court of Punjab at Lahore in Ishar Das v. Emperor, (1908) 8 Cri LJ 75 (Lah) which is a Full Court judgment of the Chief Court at Lahore. If the respondent had any justification for filing the criminal complaint, it does not vanish merely because the complaint was field at Asansol. As already indicated the weight of the authorities is in favour of the jurisdiction of the Court at Asansol.

19. On an overall consideration of the whole matter, we are inclined to take the view that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent had no reasonable and probable cause for prosecuting the appellant.

20. Coming now to the question of malice, it may be stated at the outset that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent bore any illwill or enmity against him. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the complaint was filed against his client at Asansol with the motive of harassing him and coercing him to pay the money twice. If the Court at Asansol had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, malice cannot be inferred against the respondent merely because he approached that Court, nor can malice be inferred from the circumstance that the respondent held out a promise to the witnesses of the appellant that he would withdraw the prosecution against him in case he was paid the price of the plot. A person who is defrauded has two remedies available to him. First is the civil action for the return of the money and the second is the criminal prosecution to have the guilty person punished. If the complaint makes a demand of his dues during the criminal prosecution, he is merely asking for something to which he is entitled. No dishonest motive can be inferred from such a demand. In S. T. Sahib v. N. Hasan Ghani Sahib, AIR 1957 Mad 646, it was observed as follows:--