Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

After the acquittal the plaintiff submitted a certified copy of the judgment in the office of defendant no. 1 & 2. A registered notice was also sent to defendant no. 1 to 3 on 10.02.2003 demanding Rs. 10 lacs as damages for false and malicious prosecution. The notice had not been replied so far.

On the basis of the aforesaid the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for seeking recovery against the defendants. 3 In pursuance of the summons the defendants appeared and filed their written statement taking preliminary objection. It is stated that on 30.01.1995, Shri Jawahar Mishra lodged a complaint at 7.30 a.m that he saw a constable who was forcing a boy to walk in a traditional position called "Murga". The said police constable pushed the boy with his wearing boot, consequently the boy fell down. The said person raised alarm and after seen the mob the police officials ran away from the spot. On the basis of the said statement FIR No. 42/1995 under Section 304 A IPC was registered and the investigation was handed over to the local police. On the next date the case was transferred to Crime Branch. In the meantime the boy died on 30.01.1995. The SDM conducted inquest proceedings. During the inquest proceedings by SDM, concluded that the boy died due to beating by constable Varinder Singh and recommended suitable action against the erring constable. Therefore, he was arrested in the case and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by Inspector O.P. Arora, Crime Branch.

On the basis of the above the plaintiff has claimed that all the defendants have maliciously prosecuted him, therefore is liable for compensation for malicious prosecution.

11 On the other hand defendant has set up a case that on 30.01.1995 one Jawahar Mishra son of Sh. Vishwanath Mishra lodged a report that the police station to the effect that one police constable had forced a boy to walk in a traditional position called Murga. The said police constable pushed the boy with his wearing boot consequently boy fell down. On the statement of the Jawahar Mishra the FIR 42/95 under Section 304­A IPC was registered and the investigation was handed over to the local police. On the next date the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch. In the mean time the said boy expired on 30.01.1995 and the SDM conducted the inquest proceedings regarding the deceased. During the investigation the SDM found that boy was died due to beating by constable Virender Singh and suitable action against the erring constable was recommended. It was found that Const. Varinder caused injuries to the deceased, consequently he was arrested in the said case and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the court against the plaintiff by defendant no. 3 after getting orders from the hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi to prosecute Varinder Singh, thus the defendants had acted in discharge of their official duty in good faith, therefore they are not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiff. 12 Perusal of the plaint clearly shows that not a whisper has been made by the plaintiff regarding the fact as to why he was framed by the defendant. He has not made any averment against any of the defendant for prosecuting him without any reasonable cause.