Court dismissed the appeal against a civil judgment dismissing suit for compensation for malicious prosecution. Held that prosecution had reasonable cause and malice was not established by cogent evidence.
Appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on 18-01-2019 Judgment delivered on 15-03-2019
FA No. 141 of 2004
VERSUS
1. Sohanlal S/o Anandram, Aged about 45 years.
2. Chameli Bai D/o Sohanlal, Aged about 24 years. Both R/o Gariyaband, P.S. & Tahsil Gariyabad, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.)
3. Kaushal Ram S/o Punaram Dewangan, Aged about 40 years.
4. Chovaram S/o Vishal Dewangan, Aged about 55 years.
5. Devlal S/o Shivnandan Dewangan, Aged about 58 years. Respondent 3 to 5 are R/o village Fulkara, P.O. Gariyabad, P.S. & Tahsil Gariyabad, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.)
6. Bhagwan S/o Kriparam Yadav, Aged about 42 years, R/o village Chikhali, P.O. Gariyabad, P.S. & Tahsil Gariyabad, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
7. Kamlesh Dewangan @ Komal Prasad Dewangan, S/o Mayaram Dewangan, Aged abuot 38 years, R/o Behind Thomas Hospital, (Durgesh Stores, Bazar Ward), Mahasamund, P.S. & Tahsil & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.)
2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For appellants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For respondents : None
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
CAV JUDGMENT
3
As per version of the respondents, report was lodged on the basis of true event and the trial court convicted the appellants, therefore, it is not a case of malicious prosecution but the police authorities have conducted proper investigation of the complaint made by the complainant and prosecution was resulted into conviction by the trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under:
4
Court. When commission of offence is informed to Police agency, they have right to investigate the matter independently which is done in the present case. From the evidence collected during investigation, it was found that there is substance for prosecuting the appellant and his son for the offence in question. The evidence was adduced by the prosecution before the trial court which was accepted by the trial Court and guilt of the appellant and his son is proved.
5
basic ingredient for such malicious act is lacking in the case, therefore, finding arrived at by the trial Court is not liable to be interfered with while invoking jurisdiction of this appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
against the appellant as under:
(i) The appeal is dismissed with cost. (ii) Appellant to bear the cost of the respondents through out. (iii) Pleader's fee., if certified, be calculated as per Schedule or as per certificate whichever is less.
(iv) A decree be drawn up accordingly.
Sd/-
( Ram Prasanna Sharma ) JUDGE
Raju
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal for compensation on the ground of malicious prosecution is maintainable in law.
Whether absence of reasonable cause and malice bars the claim for compensation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Girdhar S/o Hemnath Dewangan
Sohanlal S/o Anandram
Kamlesh Dewangan
Ram Prasanna Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
