Dau Dayal v. the State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court24 Nov 19581958 INSC 104 · [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 6391958 INSC 104

A compact analysis

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.

Dau Dayal versus the State of Uttar Pradesh — Supreme Court (1959) — LawSathi Research

¶52

v. The appellant relies on certain decisions as showing Tlt6 Stat6 of that the prosecution must be held to commence only Uttar Prad1sh when process is issued and not when complaint is filed. In Sheik Meeran Sahib v. Ratnavelu Mudali ('), V 1nltatarama De Rozario v. Guiab Chand Anundjee (')and Golap Jan Aiyar ]. v. Bholanath Khettry (³ ) cited by the appellant, the question was whether an action for damages for malicious prosecution would lie when the complaint was dismissed without notice to the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff could not be held to have been prosecuted unless process was issued to him and that where the complaint was dismissed without such process being issued, there was no prosecution and no action for damages in respect of such prosecution would lie. These decisions have no bearing on the present question. In suits for damages for malicious prosecution, one of the points to be decided is, whether the plaintiff was, in fact, prosecuted ; and if he was, no question arises as to when the prosecution commenced. On the other hand, the point for decision in a prosecution under the Act is, not whether there was a. prosecution but when it was instituted ;·and a question as to whether there was prosecution or not would be wholly foreign to it. Indeed, in an action for damages for malicious prosecution, when it is held that there was prosecution, that could properly be held to have commenced when the complaint was filed and not when the process was issued. Vide the observations of Woodroffe, J., in the course of the argument in Golap Jan v. Bholanath Khettry (') at p. 884. The decisions in Sheik Meeran Sahib v. Ratnavelu Mudali ('), De Rozario v. Gulab Chand Anundjee (') and Golap Jan v. Bholanath Khettry (') therefore do not throw any light on the matter now under consideration. It may be that these decisions may have to be reconsidered in the light of the recent decision of the Privy Council in Mohamed Amin v. Jogendra Kumar Bannerjee ('), wherein it was observed:

Dau Dayal v. the State of Uttar Pradesh

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi versus S. Teja Singh

Messrs. Dhandhania Kedia & Co. versus the Commissioner of Income-Tax

Dr. Y. S. Parmar versus Sh. Hira Singh Paul and Another

G. Vekkataswami Naidu & Co. versus the Commissioner of Income-Tax

Dau Dayal v. the State of Uttar Pradesh

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi versus S. Teja Singh

Messrs. Dhandhania Kedia & Co. versus the Commissioner of Income-Tax

Dr. Y. S. Parmar versus Sh. Hira Singh Paul and Another

G. Vekkataswami Naidu & Co. versus the Commissioner of Income-Tax

The State of Andhra Pradesh versus Kandimalla Subbaiah and Another