R.S.A No. 4039 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 4039 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : March 04, 2010 Kewal Krishan, ...... Appellant (s) v. Barjinder Singh, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. A.S.Jattana, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below holding the appellant guilty of malicious prosecution. The trial Court awarded damages of Rs.1.50 lac but the lower appellate Court reduced them to Rs.60,000/-. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was wrongly accused by the respondent in a case under the Essential Commodities Act and that while raiding the house of the appellant, the respondent had forcibly taken away a jeep of the appellant. The appellant was acquitted in the said case. Thereafter, he made a report to the police R.S.A No. 4039 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: about the forcibly taking away of his jeep. An FIR was also lodged but the same was cancelled. Thereafter, the appellant filed a private complaint but after summoning, the respondent was discharged, which order has become final. It is after this that the respondent filed the instant suit for damages which, as mentioned above, has been decreed by the Courts below holding that the respondent having been discharged, the appellant was guilty of malicious prosecuting him. The following questions have been proposed :- “ 1. Whether PW-1 failed to prove incident of derogatory remarks used against him, who is the police officer ? 2. Whether record shows any unnecessary exaggerated about his alleged injury to his reputation ? 3. Whether the respondent has suffered any loss or how assessed any amount of injury for reputation ? 4. Whether there is any cogent and positive evidence on the record for adjudication of the case ? 5. Whether the courts below can be able to pass any such judgment in the absence of verbal or documentary evidence ? 6. Whether the cost of jeep wrongfully retained by the plaintiff can be ignored ?” It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellant has primarily argued on question No.3 and urged that the respondent no where gave any details about what damage he had suffered. I am of the opinion that even though R.S.A No. 4039 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: this argument may have been raised against the award of the trial Court yet it cannot be said that award of Rs.60,000/- by the lower appellate Court is based on no reason or is arbitrary. Consequently, this question has to be answered against the appellant. Resultantly, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 04, 2010. JUDGE `kk'