Ghulam Mohd.and others vs Mohamdoo

(1) This is a plaintiff's second appeal directed against an order of the SubJudge Udhampur dated 29th Har 2009. The plaintiff had brought a suit

for a sum of Rs. 100/ as damages for malicious prosecution. The trial Court of Munsiff Rassi granted a decree of Rs. 100/ in favour of the plaintiff.

Against this order the defendant went in appea] to the SubJudge Udhampur who by his order referred to above upset the judgment of the trial

Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The lower appellate Court has found that the judgment in the criminal case out of which the suit for

malicious prosecution has arisen ""was not satisfactory in regard to the question of possession over the land"" which is the bone of contention in this

litigation. The defendant's case both as complainant in the criminal Court and in the civil Court has been that the land was in his possession from a

very long time, and when on the relevant date he visited the land, he found the accused already there, who abused him and assaulted him. The

learned appellate Judge also found that the Munsiff had allowed himself to be guided by the findings of the criminal Court to come to the conclusion

that the appellant was never in possession of the land.

(2) In an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff has to prove that he was innocent and was held so by the Court before whom charge was

made against him. He has also got to show that there was want of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution, and that the proceedings

were started against him in a malicious spirit with an indirect and improper motive and not for the purpose of vindicating law. In view of the finding

of the lower appellate Court that the criminal Court's conclusions with regard to the possession over the land were not satisfactory, I think that the

plaintiff's suit has been rightly dismissed. I agree with the finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court which is based upon sound reasoning and

material on record. All that has been proved by the plaintiff in this case is that he was acquitted of the charge by a criminal Court. He has not been

able to show in the present case that the defendant had no reasonable cause for bringing the complaint against him.

(3) It has to be taken into consideration that there is no presumption with respect to criminal proceedings that they were wrongly taken if the

proceedings fail in a Court of Law. It might be for a number of causes that a complainant might not have been able to prove his case, but if every

complainant whose complaint is dismissed were to be proceeded against with an action for malicious prosecution, it would mean a great deal of

hardship for all those who fail to prove their complaint. It is, therefore, necessary for the plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution to prove not

only that he has been declared innocent, but that he must also show that there was no probable or reasonable cause for the complainant to have

started proceedings in this case. I therefore, do not find myself in disagreement with the view taken by the lower appellate Court. This appeal is

rejected. Taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs in this Court.

(4) B/D.R.R. Appeal dismissed.