The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal concerning a civil suit for recovery of damages. The court held that mere benefit of doubt in criminal acquittal is insufficient to prove malicious prosecution without independent evidence establishing malice. Consequently, the suit was rightly dismissed.
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.
RSA No.353 of 2016 (O&M)
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.353 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:04.12.2018
Dr. Group Captain Hem Raj Garg ... Appellant
Vs.
Punjab Relief Society and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
... Respondents
Present:Mr. C.L.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in a suit seeking recovery of `60,00,000/- on the premise that damages and losses suffered by the plaintiff on account of malicious prosecution in criminal case bearing FIR No.168 dated 19.6.2002 under Sections 408 and 477A of Indian Penal Code, registered with PS.Barnala, wherein, vide judgment dated 5.7.2007 was acquitted.
The plaintiff alleged that he was a Post Graduate Medical Professional holding MBBS, AMD qualifications and had retired from the post of Deputy Medical Officer of Eastern Air Command of Indian Air Force in the rank of Group Captain. Defendant no.2 was having some personal motive against the plaintiff. FIR on account of embezzlement was nothing but malafide act on behalf of the complainant, i.e. society which was run through the trustees.
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.17 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.353 of 2016 (O&M) {2}
The defendants opposed the suit by denying that Megh Raj was not the Chief Trustee of defendant no.1 but was the sole trustee of said Society. The plaintiff accepted the offer only when the same was found acceptable and cannot take the plea that he had become an easy catch for Megh Raj Garg. The property was in the name of the trust and had been raised from mere `1000/-. The appeal against the claim is pending adjudication before the Higher Court as Dinesh Gupta, one of the witnesses did not turn up to give evidence.
The plaintiff examined the following witnesses:-
| PW1 | Gian Singh |
|---|---|
| PW2 | Shivji Ram |
| PW3 | Jai Parkash |
| PW4 | Prem Kumar |
| PW5 | Karam Singh Bhandari |
| PW6 | himself |
The plaintiff tendered the documents, i.e. copies of FIR, charge sheet, judgment and challan (Ex.P1 to Ex.P6). On the other hand, defendants examined Prem Garg as DW1 and tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex.DW1/A.
Mr. C.L.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submitted that no doubt, the appellant-plaintiff was acquitted of benefit of doubt but the malice in the registration of FIR was writ large. The aforementioned criminal proceedings were not actuated on
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.17 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.353 of 2016 (O&M) {3}
account of some piece of evidence but intentionally to rope the appellant in criminal case to destroy his carrier and reputation.
I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable, for, in such suits, the plaintiff is not only required to place on record the copy of judgment and challan but had to lead an independent evidence that registration of FIR and initiation of the criminal proceedings are an act of malice to bring the case within the expression “malicious prosecution”. The obligation to discharge the onus was not fulfilled. In such circumstances, the Court below did not have any other option but to dismiss the suit as it was not clear cut case of acquittal but benefit of doubt. In order to prove his case, he has to lead direct and cogent evidence other than the judgment. The aforementioned view of mine is derived from the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Dilip Kumar Ray 2007(14) Supreme Court Cases 568.
As an upshot of my findings, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the findings rendered by both the Courts below which are based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, much less no substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal.
The appeal stands dismissed.
| (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| December 04, 2018 | |
| savita | |
| Whether Speaking/Reasoned | Yes/No |
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.17 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of doubt in criminal acquittal amounts to malicious prosecution to recover damages in a civil suit.
Whether the appellant led independent evidence to prove malice in the registration of the FIR rather than relying solely on the acquittal judgment.
Whether the finding by the lower courts dismissing the suit was perverse or illegal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Dilip Kumar RayDistinguished¶23
West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Dilip Kumar Ray 2007(14) Supreme Court Cases 568
Dr. Group Captain Hem Raj Garg
Punjab Relief Society
AMIT RAWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
