l^SingleBench i :r-j fc ^ j PAGE No.£3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) CIVIL P.ev^|(?N Nfi. .f^L( /^tfy^ ^wM^ede^^vi. ^——_ —~ --— ~-~^ ^•^TT^~^~~~^' ^ffr1' ^fi^,7' (SECONDAPP^3N(^.-1^/^ /2006^ ^. \W6e, ^^/^ CAPPELLANT?\-f^,^^ 1-, Shiv Shankar Patel, ,[defendantT '-^ S/0 Kanhai Patel, Aged about- 60 Yrs. By Profession: Cultivator, R/0 Village-Chandibhawna, P.S. SsTah. Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.)1 :VERSUS: S.B, RESPQNDENTS: - /(Plaintiff.) w ^r ^•'./ '<^ w^p Smt. Phulki Bai, Age:- 50 Yrs, W/0 Jaikrishana, % Bariha, Age: -50 Yrs. S/0 Banmali, Govind, Age: - 62 Yrs. S/0 Punit Lal, All the above are:- R/0 Village- Chandibhawana, P.S. & Tahsil Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund [C.G.] _C1VJL R£V!&!(5N UNJ>&e ^^EMM_J^ MEMO OFrSECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100X)F CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: Of 191 XI-HC-78 3TT^T^)Tf<^Jcb cT§TT3TT^T9h^l<=b 3^T ^l^lcrl^, ^TTl^^Ko, f^dl^y +11*1^1 Sti+licn^C-.K^.-M)^.-^ 200 3<i^i ^i^ct) (<ic<i^G<^) ^<TTW;Hf?cT^TT^T 23.02.2007 Applicduit/defendant by passed by 1st Additional &istr| Apped No. 2-B of 2003 af^ <+l-4?d41^ 41^dT^'tel^<^f^l< ^3Ti^R'3TT^T 9iri J.A.Lohflni, Advocate. Respondents/Plaintiffs fc|y Shri LC.bash, Adwcate. Heard. The applicanft is oyfff^fed by an order dated 27.04.2006 passed in Civit Suit No.4-B of ^002 by Ch^il Judge Clas^I, Saraipali 9rantir^ compendatkm of Rs 10,000/- for maltetous |B»®wcution launched by the flppliGant cgdnlst the respondents. Brief facts are that on FJ.R. a9ain^t the respondents ct Judgc, Mflibasomund (C.©.)in Ciyil irmh^ the order dated 16.06.2003 02.11.90 the oppliccmt htpein ledged regardtoi9 theft of cropt frem larKls Kh.No.36/2, 36/3 and 36/8 s|tuated in vUta9e Chandibhona. VNe Judgment dated 07.10.1998 ||>assed by the Crimind Ceurt, the respondents herein were <»squ{tted wAiile recordiyy a Gtew findir^ that respondent Ne.l-niulki B(xi had sowm tlwi crops hwvestcd by her- and the said crops wwe al^o returned to PhulM Bai. It was at&o noticed that a civil suit rel^til pflB-ties prtor to lo^ing of the ^ i^ to tltte was pendiiy between the '.I.R. by -rtie oppellflnit. The learned Civil Juc^e |Class-X, Saroipatt recon&d a ftndBngi thort- the prosecution launch^d by 1*i& appellant herein was a malfcious prosecution and awcnfded cewnpensation of Rs.t0,000/- to A XI-HC-78 3:n^r^)T^i<=t) c^TW^T^HT^ 'S^ -t||^ld<4, ^Tfl^^Ko, [^^l^y *11+1^1 a^TTcb ^ 200 311^1 <4^ch ('ic<^s'<<^) ^<TT8?P:^f?cT3Ti^T the respondent^i herein. Bei| preferred Civil Appeal Nfl>. 2-jl recorded by the lowsr Court, ^ie Mahasamuiid dismfa^ed the app^al Learned coun^el for th®|applieant wyied of ocquittal in a criniin<ri prose^ion ipsa fcKta make thc criniinal estabtidied. Reliance w<as ptac|ed 1984 MPWN 178. Wchid v.\ ih@A ihe mere fact ;4»tionlounched by the police docs not plrosecutiwi malicioys ynlesg malice is on Indroi Bhewf Stwih K f^sm Mthm \ICN.Pafhak t999(^ M?WN ftt83, Kufubuddin v. Ishfwf Beawn <W others 1086 (I^ « WN (?41, ofMJP. 1996 a^ MPWN 82 Qutta AIR 199t Calcutta W. cwndtl fw the responden*s| impu9ned jud9ment and d€cree|dated27.04.2006 Kwns/nahv.fftikibsfnshWSt (l) Hwing heard the rivd case l<w citcd by the learnedj impugned judgmet'ri" in Civlt wnsidcred opinion that this Civ^ chi^Td<kTIT^ ^i^i^T^te^^^K ^^Tf^T^n^T ig <g9rteved, thc Gfipttlca^ herein of 20©^ Affipnring the findlng team®^A<lrfittolwtOistrict Judge, Bhm'atahtiahanv.€hmdfwM<fHwl99!i^3 135. Mewalalv. JjWx? 4nd Smt. Sevwwni Otitfa v. C^dbrat the <yrtwr hand, learn^l Mrihite WQuinQ in supjiort' of tl» phaced reliance an MPWN (823. ^ontentions md aftcr peruslng the Goynsel for thc cypttcant md the No. 2-B of 2003, I am of the Revision is tkfcle to bc dismisaid. Ap||>eat XI-HC-78 3TT^T^)T^i<=h cTSn'3TT^T$h^icb ^. 3^T ^ii^Kn^, ^TTI^^KO, [^<^i<-i^< +11^<<ll sh^lich ^ 200 3^1^1 ^5tcb (<ic<tti<SI^T) ^<TTW^f^T3:n^T -3 ^. chi^f<"1^T1 ^I^^T^:feI:^'<Rl<:<-K ^3rf^T3TT^T In an action for nialici^us proseeytioti the plaintiff must prove: 1. 2. 3. 4. That ha was by the defendant. That the proceedjir^s cotiiplaln^l of terminated In favoyr of the pkiinltjff. That the proseci|ition was iiwt'ityteA agaitist him without any reckdon^ible or probabte eause. That the prosecut|{oi» was instM'yted with a malfciotis intentton, that isj not with Ihe nN^e intenkioii of carryiry the lcw |nto eff^t, l^ irith an i^ whieh was wrongfut| in point of fact. 5. That h®has suffet-ed the saf&ty of pers|9n, to the security af l^i It te an admitted fc^t danice^ to hte repvtation or to m, or to the secvr y of pcMon, or isproperty, ^hat the respondtents harein wwle prosecuted by the applicont hjerem upon a P.I.R, lodgwl by liw applicant with the police relat|u^'to thcffr of crop^ It te also undispu^d that in criminal pros|Beution the rcspondtentf hwein were acquitted by the Criminat Court.| A findirg wecs meorded b^ the Crhninal Gowt Itifft'a Civil &iit based on title was ah-eady pendijn^ between the pwttes aml that tlw evidence led before it ctearly|revealed ^iat the crops harvesNd r XI-HC-78 3Tl^T^T^i<=t) cT§Tr3TT^T9h^lch L;> 3^T -qiqK-iq, ^Tfl^^Ko, ^dj<-l<4,< *11+1<-1< sh^ich ^ 200 3^1^1 ^5|cb (lic<i^^) ^RTTW^iN^T^T -4 from the dteputed lands wcrcl Phvtkf Bai and were dso returnid The witnesses examincy Lakshman P.W.S, ^hansiram P.W.4 favour of Phulki Bai by deposjtfi^ that the agricyltupat to the Jaikrlshrw. the husband|of Phulki sown the crops fihe had harv4^t&d remained totally unrebutted. nd* In the aforesaki 4 are also established beyond by the appticQnt herein was IQW hito effect, but with an int|i fact. The respomilents hercln | the year 1991 tilt 1998 anct society euid atso suffered prosecutton launched at the tests of a maltcfous prosecutio4 In view of the cxpens^s compensation awrded Gon, in ti|& In llite view of the matter, Revision since therc is nathinql chl^^41-< HTF^ff^ fe1^ <Rl<-<.!< ^3T^T3TT^T somi only by 1+ie resporKlent No.l<" to her. by the plointiff ©ovind P.W.3, and Bartha P.W.2 also Iwttified in lcuid belon9^d Bai and since Phutki Bai had the same, This evkicnce had circunifiltances, e^sentid condlfions hto.3 and |doubt therl- the proseautton toinc^rd with the tntention of Garrying the irrt'l&ntionwhich was wnmgfvt in point of |foced thc criminal prost^utton from 4uffer»d loss of re|iitirt'ion in Kwir (|nentat agony. Thys the crinitna^ rc^ierh of thc opplkstait satlsfi«8all the hieyprwl dwlttg thte period/ the manner, be said to be uryustifidMe. •there is ne autetancc in ttiis Chrjl on record to show ^w^ •rtw <3(ivrtSi XI-HC-78 3T^T^ffN^ cT§TTW^T$h^l<=h ^N : \ ^' iOY»^. "-/ ^ 3^T ^l^lcrt^, ^Tfl^JI(o, ^t^l^y +11+1C11 5h*ll<sb ^ 200 3<1^1 ^15<cb (^i^^) ?^<Tr^T^fN'^n^T -J- below have acted in the exerc material irre9ularity/ or have it by law or hwe faited to exer< The Civil Revision bein9 shall be no order as to costs. |se ef its Jurtediction Hle9alfy or with ^xerclsed ajurtedictian not vested in |;ise ajurisdietion so vested, ktevaid of merit is disniissed. Thcre cbl^f^l41r1 ^l^crlT^te^^^K ^3Tf^R'3:n^T Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O.