RSA No. 2388 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA No. 2388 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.02.2008 Jasmer Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana etc. ...Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav -.- Present : Mr. Yadvinder Singh Turka, Advocate for the Appellant -.- Nirmal Yadav, J. (Oral) C.M. Nos. 6783 C and 6784 C of 2007 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay in filing and refiling the appeal is condoned. Both civil miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. RSA No. 2388 of 2007 This is plaintiff's regular second appeal and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2005 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, which has been affirmed vide judgment and decree dated 17.10.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Kurukshetra. According to the plaintiff, following three F.I.Rs. were registered against him:- i). FIR No. 30 dated 06.02.1992, registered with Police Station Mulana, District Ambala for RSA No. 2388 of 2007 (O&M) 2 offence under Sections 302, 307, 392 and 394 IPC and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of TADA; ii) FIR No. 44 dated 29.02.1992, registered with Police Station Ladwa, District Kurukshetra for offence under Section 216-A IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of TADA; and iii) FIR No. 46 dated 3.3.1992, registered with Police Station Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, for offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA and 25 Arms Act, 1959. In all the aforesaid cases, plaintiff was acquitted vide judgments EX P2, EX P3 and EX P5, respectively. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff was tortured and harassed by the police, thereby, causing mental pain and loss of reputation. He served a legal notice to the authorities i.e. Kundan Lal, CIA Inspector, Kurukshetra and Director General of Police, Haryana. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed a Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 184 of 2001 in this Court, claiming damages against the State Government. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 08.01.2001, however, it was observed that if so advised, petitioner may seek remedy before the Civil Court. Thereafter, he filed a civil suit, seeking a decree for damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- against the defendants. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation. As per Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963, compensation for malicious prosecution could be filed within one year from the date when the plaintiff was acquitted or the prosecution is terminated otherwise. Admittedly, in FIR No. 30 dated 06.02.1992, the plaintiff was acquitted vide RSA No. 2388 of 2007 (O&M) 3 judgment EX P2 on 13.05.1997, while in other two FIRs (as mentioned above), he was acquitted vide judgments EX P3 and EXP5 on 06.10.1999. There is no evidence that any appeal was filed against the judgment of acquittal in all the three cases. The limitation would, therefore, be reckoned from the date when the plaintiff was acquitted. Learned counsel further argued that the plaintiff had filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 184 of 2001 in this Court under some misconception that he could approach the High Court, for seeking damages. However, the said writ petition was dismissed on 08.01.2001 by giving liberty to the plaintiff to pursue his remedy before the Civil Court. Thereafter, he filed civil suit on 03.01.2002 within the limitation. The argument raised is without any force as dismissal of the writ petition with liberty to pursue the remedy before the Civil Court does not extend the period of limitation, and it would be reckoned, in view of the Article 74 of the Limitation Act only. Acquittal of the plaintiff in the first FIR was on 13.05.1997 and in two other FIRs was on 06.10.1999. However, the suit was filed on 03.01.2002, much after the expiry of the limitation period. Both the Courts below have rightly held that the suit was barred by a period of limitation. As a sequel to the above discussion, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav) Judge February 26, 2008 mohan