RSA No.4058 of 2010(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No.4058 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 26, 2010 Raobinder Singh ---Appellant versus Gursev Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.G.S.Toor, Advocate, for the appellant *** GURDEV SINGH, J. C.M.No. 13278-C of 2010 Heard. While making his submissions on 1.11.2010. it was submitted by counsel for the appellant that it was observed by the first appellate court that Baltej Singh stated in the court that he was not so abducted and as such there was no question of the prosecution of the respondent-plaintiff with a malicious intention. He was asked to place on record the statement of that Baltej Singh. This application has been filed for placing on record that statement. In fact, that statement was recorded before the criminal court and RSA No.4058 of 2010(O&M) {2} not the civil court, the judgment and decree of which has been challenged in the present appeal. Such a statement cannot be allowed to be placed on the record. Application is dismissed accordingly. C.M. No. 12085-C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, the time for making up the deficiency in the court fee is extended by a fortnight. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No. 4058 of 2010(O&M) In the suit filed by Gursev Singh, respondent-plaintiff, for damages for malicious prosecution, the appellants-defendants were ordered to pay ` 50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount, as compensation, jointly and severally, vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.2010 passed by Addl. Civil Judge(Senior Division) Barnala. The defendants preferred first appeal against that judgment and decree, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Barnala, vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2010. The present second appeal has been preferred against those judgments and decrees. The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that Mohinder Singh is the son of his paternal uncle and Raobinder Singh- defendant No. 1 is his real brother whereas Baltej Singh-defendant No. 2, is the son of said Mohinder Singh. The first marriage of Mohinder Singh was performed but he deserted his wife. Thereafter, he kept Mohinder Kaur RSA No.4058 of 2010(O&M) {3} with him as his wife. Mohinder Singh died leaving behind a residential house and agricultural land in village Bihla Khurd. Defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendant No. 2 wanted to dispossess Mohinder Kaur from those properties and to grab the same. He (plaintiff) being a relative of Mohinder Kaur, was having sympathy with her. The defendants hatched a conspiracy and started claiming that defendant No. 2 has been abducted and killed. Applications were moved to that effect before senior police officials, which after verification were found to be false. On the basis of the false allegations he was arrayed as an accused in the criminal proceedings and was arrested and kept in jail for almost one month. In the criminal proceedings, defendants No. 3 and 4 were cited as witnesses. During the pendency of those proceedings, he saw defendant No. 2 in the house of defendant No. 1 and after verification of the facts, moved an application before the JMIC, Barnala, and got recovered defendant No. 2 from the house of defendant No. 1. After that defendant was produced in the Court, he suffered statement in the criminal proceedings and resultantly he was acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. On account of his prosecution, he suffered monetary loss and mental tension. He is trained in electronics and had been serving as electronics mechanic in Libya. On account of the criminal case, he could not go to that country and suffered loss. He quantified that compensation as ` 7,00,000/- and filed suit for recovery of that amount. The suit was contested by respondents No. 1, 2 and 4, who filed joint written statement. In their written statement, they admitted the relationship of defendants No. 1 and 2 with Mohinder Singh and that Mohinder Kaur was kept as wife by said Mohinder Singh. They also RSA No.4058 of 2010(O&M) {4} admitted that criminal proceedings were launched against the plaintiff for the abduction of defendant No. 2 and his acquittal in those proceedings by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, after the appearance of defendant no. 2 as a witness in that court. They denied the other contentions made in the plaint and inter alia pleaded that 20 days before the death of Mohinder Singh, plaintiff along with Mohinder Kaur and Raobinder Singh abducted defendant No. 2 on the pretext that they were to go to Patiala to enquire about the health of Mohinder Singh, who was under treatment in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and thereafter, defendant no. 2 was kept at some secret place. It was after the Bhog ceremony of Mohinder Singh, that defendant No. 1 moved an application before the higher police officers against the plaintiff and others for tracing defendant No. 2 and on those allegations, FIR No. 273 dated 1.12.1998 was registered against the plaintiff and others in Police Station, City Barnala. Before the trial court, the suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff against defendant No. 3. He filed replication to the written statement filed by the other defendants in which he denied the contentions of the defendants and reiterated his averments made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff was malice(maliciously)prosecuted by the defendant?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. Seven lacs as damages of malice(malicious) prosecution from defendant?OPP 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the RSA No.4058 of 2010(O&M) {5} purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 4. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD 5. Relief To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Gurcharan Singh, PW-2. On the other hand, defendants examined Jora Singh, DW-1 and Mukhtiar Singh, DW-2. Defendant No. 1 himself entered in the witness box as DW-1. After going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court decided Issues No. 1, 3 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff and Issue No. 2 against him and resultantly decreed his suit for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. As already said above, the first appeal filed by the defendants against that judgment and decree was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the defendants. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove that there was any intention on the part of the defendants to lodge false criminal case against him and others. That fact can easily be inferred from the statement made by defendant No. 2 before the criminal court. He had made a categorical statement that he was taken by the plaintiff and others on the plea that his father was lying admitted in the hospital and when they reached that place, defendant No. 2 over heard them while talking to each other, to cause his death in order usurp the property of Mohinder Singh. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was prosecuted with malicious intention and as such he was not entitled to any such compensation/damage. Said statement of Baltej Singh was made before the criminal court, which cannot be treated as a piece of evidence in the civil RSA No.4058 of 2010(O&M) {6} proceedings. It is not the case of the defendants that the statement of that defendant was made before the civil court also to that effect. Any such statement made by the defendant before the criminal court could have been used only for the purpose of corroborating his statement made before the civil court. Concurrent findings of facts were recorded by the lower courts. It is not the case of the defendants that the findings, so recorded, are based on the misreading of the evidence or are perverse in any manner. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 26, 2010 PARAMJIT