Pannalal Ratnlal Suranna vs Manakchand Lodha

Veeraswami, J.—The respondent sued in the Court of the District Munsif of Salem or damages for alleged malicious prosecution by the

defendant, who is the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the criminal case was instituted by the defendant at Pandharkavada in Maharashtra which

ended in the discharge of the plaintiff. The Court below sustained its jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the suit on the ground that the

summons in the prosecution was served on the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of that Court. This petition is to revise that order.

It seems to me that the Court below took the right view. The summons is a necessary step among others in a criminal prosecution. It is no doubt

true that when a complaint is filed, the Court it is that issues the summons, but it is a necessary consequence of the complaint and forms part of the

criminal proceedings. That was the view taken by the Mysore High Court in Gokaldas v. Baldevdas, AIR 1961 Mys 188 and I find myself, with

respect, in entire agreement with it.

Mr. Raghavachariar strenuously contended that, having regard to the scheme of the Civil P. C., the fasciculus of sections relating to cause of

action founded on or connected with Immovable property, the next relating to criminal prosecutions and the third with reference to contracts, show

that, unless the wrong by way of a malicious prosecution has been done within the jurisdiction of a particular Court, it would have no power to try

a suit for damages for such a prosecution. Learned counsel is right in making that proposition, but only the argument does not properly appreciate

that the wrong against the plaintiff should be taken to have been partly done at the place where he had been served with the summons, in

obedience to which he had to attend the criminal Court. In that sense the service of summons is part of the wrong done to the plaintiff.

The petition is dismissed, but with no costs.