MALICIOUS PROSECUTION UNDER INDIAN TORT LAW
DEFINITION OF ‘MALICIOUS PROSECUTION’:
It was in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray[1], that
the Court defined the term ‘malicious prosecution’ in the following words:
“A judicial proceeding instituted by one
person against another, from wrongful or improper motive and without probable
cause to sustain it, is a malicious prosecution.”
KEY ELEMENTS TO PROVE ‘MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION’:
In order to prove
malicious prosecution, the tort law demands that the plaintiff establishes
these essential factors:
1.
That
he was prosecuted by the defendant;
2.
That
there was absence of a just and probable cause;
3.
That
the proceedings were terminated in favour of the plaintiff;
4.
That
the prosecution was initiated with a malicious intent without any objective of
getting law into effect;
5.
That
damage was inflicted on the claimant’s reputation or his safety or the security
of his property.
#1. PROSECUTION BY THE DEFENDANT:
The foremost constituent
that a plaintiff requires to establish in a suit filed for damages against
malicious prosecution is to prove that he was prosecuted by the defendant.
It was stated by the Court in the case
of Khagendra Nath v. Jacob Chandra[2], that
merely lodging a complaint before the executive authority did not amount to
prosecution and, therefore, the action for malicious prosecution could not be
maintained.
#2. ABSENCE OF A JUST AND
PROBABLE CAUSE:
In a suit of damages arising from malicious
prosecution, the burden to prove that the defendant had persecuted him without
any substantive and just cause, lies on the complainant. This was established
by the Court in the case of Antarajami Sharma v. Padma Bewa[3].
#3. PROCEEDINGS WERE TERMINATED IN
FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF:
The plaintiff has to
substantiate evidence to prove that the prosecution had concluded in his
favour. A suit cannot be filed until the termination of persecution; it cannot
be initiated during the pendency. An acquittal can be on account of him being
declared innocent or any technical defect of the complaint.
If a conviction takes
place, he is not entitled to initiate a case of malicious prosecution. His only
legal remedy shall be to appeal against the conviction and if it results in his
favour, then he can sue the defendant for malicious prosecution.
#4. DEFENDANT’S MALICIOUS INTENT:
Once again, the plaintiff
has to prove conclusively that the persecution was the consequence of the
defendant’s malicious intent. Malicious intent could be any ulterior motive on
the part of that person, not in furtherance of justice.
The Court reiterated the fact in the case
of Bank of India v. Lakshmi Das[4] that in proving malicious intent one must establish that
there was no probable or just cause in initiating the persecution.
The defendant may not be
acting with malicious intent from the beginning but even during the pendency of
the case, if he comes to know about the innocence of the plaintiff, then also
its continuance shall be considered malicious.
#5. DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF:
The plaintiff has to establish conclusive
evidence that damages were suffered by him due to the persecution. Thereafter,
he can claim damages on account of three factors as established by the Court in
the case of C.M. Agarwalla v. Halar Salt and Chemical
Works[5].
·
Damage
to the plaintiff’s reputation,
·
Damage
to the plaintiff’s person,
·
Damage
to the plaintiff’s property.
Cases Related to Malicious
Prosecution:
#1. Girija Prasad v. Uma Shankar
Pathak[6]
Uma Shankar Pathak was a
practicing advocate in Panna of Madhya Pradesh. He initiated an agitation to
protest against the food scarcity that was affecting the society. A sub
inspector, Girija Prasad, was posted outside the collectorate in order to
control the crowd that gathered there. Some bullet shots were fired from
his revolver and he lodged a FIR. In this FIR he named Uma Shankar Pathak as
the person who was instigating the crowd against him. He accused the crowd of
attacking him and amidst all this commotion his revolver misfired. Uma Shankar
Pathak was arrested but finally acquitted.
After his acquittal, Uma
Shankar Pathak sued four people, including Girija Prasad for malicious
prosecution. The M P High Court came to the conclusion that the FIR lodged by
Girija Prasad was false and he was held guilty of malicious prosecution.
#2. Vishweshwar Shankarrao Deshmukh and Anr v.
Narayan Vithoba Patil[7]:
In this case the plaintiff
was a sarpanch of a village whereas defendant number 1 was working as a Gram
Sewak under the Zila Parishad and defendant number 2 was a teacher in a school
under the Zila Parishad. The plaintiff had made various complaints about the
two regarding their bad behaviour, misconduct, dereliction of duty, etc. In
order to teach him a lesson and take revenge on him, both plotted against him
and defendant number 1 filed a FIR claiming that the plaintiff had assaulted
him. A criminal proceeding started and he was arrested. Later he was acquitted
on the grounds that the complaint was made with malicious intent.
The plaintiff initiated a
case of malicious prosecution wherein he claimed that being a politician and
sarpanch, he had suffered a loss of prestige and reputation and also his status
was marred.
The Court upheld the
claims of the plaintiff and ordered the defendants to pay 12,500 as damages to
him.
Conclusion:
Malicious prosecution is
initiated with an intent to cause harm to the defendant in one way or the
other. The tort of malicious prosecution is a mechanism that safeguards
individuals against unwarranted charges. It is essentially framed in a manner
that it deters people from making frivolous charges against innocent
individuals. It also entitles the aggrieved person to seek compensation for the
loss he suffered due to malicious prosecution, like loss of reputation and
prestige, loss of wages or business loss, mental agony or psychological trauma.
[1] AIR 2007 SC 976.
Read More Visit us: school of legal education
Comments
Post a Comment