RSA No.1559 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1559 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07 .11.2011 Ram Singh ...Appellant Vs. Amir Singh & Ors. .....Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. --- Present: Mr.Suresh Kumar Aneja, Advocate, for the appellant. --- A.N.Jindal, J. CM Nos. 4345-46-C of 2011 Applications are allowed as prayed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.4348-C of 2011 The application is allowed and delay in refiling of the appeal is condoned. RSA No.1559 of 2011 2 RSA No.1559 of 2011 This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.05.2010 passed by the District Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing the appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred as the defendant) against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents (hereinafter referred as the plaintiffs) for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages on account of malicious prosecution, for the reason that a complaint under Sections 447, 427, 379, 382 and 120-B IPC was filed against them by the defendant on the false allegations, in which all the five persons (plaintiffs) were acquitted by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, on 27.09.2000. The suit was contested by the defendant while raising various pleas, including that the judgment of acquittal was passed on technical grounds and the plaintiffs were discharged while giving benefit of doubt. From the pleadings of the parties trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest on account of malicious prosecution by the defendant? OPP RSA No.1559 of 2011 3 2. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 7. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. After scrutiny of evidence issues Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs, whereas issues No.2 and 3 were decided against the defendants and suit for the recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the decision of he suit and interest at the rate of 6% per annum till realization was decreed with costs. Appeal preferred by the defendants was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Records perused. It is duly established on record that a complaint was filed by Ram Singh along with Bachan Singh son of Hardit Singh since deceased in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fazilka under sections 447, 427, 379, 382, and 120-B IPC on 25.6.1995. The RSA No.1559 of 2011 4 allegations in the complaint were that plaintiffs and Bachan Singh deceased had destroyed his Narma crop sown in the land measuring 6 kanals and uprooted 12 mango trees and had also damaged a bore installed in his land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas comprised in khasra No.17/1 (7-2) situated in the area of village Jhok Dipulana in the presence of Surjit Singh member Panchayat and Joginder Singh son of Arjan Singh. It is also established that on the basis of preliminary evidence the plaintiffs along with Bachan Singh were summoned in the said complaint. After recording pre-charge evidence, however, on scrutiny, the trial court had observed that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against them and discharged them vide order dated 27.9.2000. During these proceedings the plaintiffs had to appear in the court; engaged the lawyers; furnished bail bonds; continued attending the court on numerous days of hearing, but ultimately on their discharge in the case, it is proved that the allegations were false and complaint was filed in order to harass the plaintiff. As regards compensation, it stands established that one of the plaintiffs was a teacher, he used to miss his school on the various dates since 1995 till 2000. They had to suffer a lot of agony, mental torture, humiliation on account of the false complaint. The damage could be awarded to the plaintiffs on account of malicious prosecution, where the lis arising between the parties ended in plaintiff's favour and the defendants had acted RSA No.1559 of 2011 5 without reasonable and probable cause and was actuated by malice in launching criminal prosecution. Similar observations were made in the case R.K.Soni Vs. S.Singhara Singh, 1992 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 379. In the instant case also judgment Ex.D.1 passed in criminal case goes to show that the defendants had miserably failed to prove his case and he dragged the litigation for 5 long years against the plaintiff in which they had to suffer a lot. They had to go to the courts at Fazilka by hiring conveyance, spent stamp fee and process fee etc. It is also matter of common experience that a lot of mental and physical harassment is caused to the party who is unnecessary dragged in the court. He not only faced mental agony but wasted valuable time in court and also suffered from mental and physical harassment. He also lost health as well as time which he had spent in the court. Both the witnesses Diwan Singh and Amir Singh have proved damages while appearing in the witness box. It also cannot be disputed that the plaintiff had to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds for his appearance in the court, as such though actual calculations could not be made for which plaintiff was entitled on account of damages but the court while sitting in the arm chair of prudent man has to make a guess work that if a party visiting the courts for 5 years attending the dates, engaging the lawyers, spending over the court fee and other expenses continued facing process for 5 years, then on making some guess work it could not be less than Rs.1 lac. As such the trial court appears to have rightly RSA No.1559 of 2011 6 calculated the compensation. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below cannot be dissented by this court on the basis of mere minor contradictions. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 7.11.2011 Judge rp