Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 30 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
CS DJ 733-19
ASHOK KUMAR
S/o late Sh. Ram Pal Sharma
M.O. Incharge of M/s United India Insurance Co.Ltd
having its Office at 7, BBC Complex, 150,
Ring Road, Kilokari,
Opposite Maharani Bagh,
New Delhi-110014.
R/o 100-A/1, Village Kilokari,
New Delhi-110014. .....Plaintiff
Vs.
1. STATE OF HARYANA
Through the Chief Secretary
4th Floor, Haryana Civil Secretariat,
Sector-1, Chandigarh-160001.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
PALWAL (DELETED)
Haryana Police,
District Police Office,
Mini Secretariat, Kushlipur,
NH-2, Palwal-121102, Haryana.
3. DSP, PALWAL (DELETED)
Haryana Police,
District Police Office,
Mini Secretariat, Kushlipur,
NH-2, Palwal-121102, Haryana
4. SI VIRENDER SINGH
Haryana Police,
PS Camp Palwal,
Palwal-121102, Haryana.
5. ASI DHARAMVIR SINGH
Haryana Police, PS Camp Palwal,
PS Camp Palwal,
Palwal-121102, Haryana.
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:03:46
+0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 1 of 27
6. SHAMSHER SINGH
S/o Sh. Kishan Singh,
Village Jodhpur, PS Sadar,
Palwal-121102, Haryana.
7. AMIT CHAUDHARY
S/o Sh. K.C. Chaudhary,
R/o 596, Krishna Colony,
Palwal-121102, Haryana. ....Defendants
Date of Institution : 29.08.2019
Date of Reserving judgment : 01.04.2025
Date of Judgment : 30.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed for damages caused to the
plaintiff on account of malicious prosecution initiated by the
defendant no. 7 and continued by all the defendants in
connivance of each other.
Plaintiff’s Case:
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was serving as Incharge
of M/s United Insurance India Company Ltd (hereinafter
referred to as the Company), Maharani Bagh office, New
Delhi at the time of the alleged malicious prosecution. One
Jeewan Agarwal MD of M/s Auto Risk Management
service, Pvt, Ltd was acting on behalf of the company for
pre-insurance vehicle inspection. Further, the Company vide
MOU dated 03.03.2012 authorized Sh. Ajay Agarwal of M/s
Automative India and were permitted to issue motor
insurance cover notes of those vehicles whose insurance
policy was in continuity. Further, in case of “break in
insurance” prior pre-insurance inspection report was to be
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:03:55
+0530CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 2 of 27
carried out by Jeewan Agarwal MD of M/s Auto Risk
Management Service Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the cover note could be
issued in case of vehicles related to “break in insurance”
after pre-insurance inspection report to be carried out by M/s
Auto Risk Management Service Pvt. Ltd. Both Sh. Ajay
Agarwal and Sh. Ashish Bansal had to collect insurance
premium, previous insurance policy, RC and proposal form
and pre-inspection report along with other documents.
3. In one of these cases, the company issued policy no.
041281/31/12/01/00000364 dated 10.04.2012 in lieu of
Motor Insurance Cover Note No. 041281/31/11/007213
dated 09.04.2012. The cover note vide letter dated
1/03.03.2012 was acknowledged by M/s Shreyans Insurance
Brokers Pvt. Ltd. The said policy was cancelled on
18.01.2013 as per the rules after detecting the fraud
committed by the defendant no. 6 and 7 respectively and the
cancellation was intimated to the defendant no. 6 Shamsher
Singh, the owner of the vehicle.
4. Vide letter dated 18.09.2012, plaintiff was authorized to file
a criminal case vide CC No. 28/1/13 titled as Ashok Kumar
Vs. Samsher Singh & Anr. in which investigation was
pending against defendant no. 6 and 7 at the time of the
filing of the suit. The said complaint was registered as FIR
No. 299/14 dated 15.05.2014 under Section
419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC. The said FIR was
registered against the accused persons on the ground that a
vehicle bearing registration No. HR 30 J 6311 met with an
accident on 10.04.2012 at 0:630 hrs pursuant to which FIR
no. 49/12 under Section 279/304 A IPC was registered at PS
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:04:06
+0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 3 of 27
Ballabhgarh, Sadar, Haryana. However, the motor insurance
cover note of the said vehicle was prepared by Sh. Ajay
Agarwal and Sh. Ashish Bansal at the instance of defendant
no. 6 and 7 on 09.04.2012 at about 16:30 hrs at Palwal.
However, the pre-insurance inspection report was prepared
by Jeewan Agarwal and defendant no. 7 on 10.04.2012 at
11:30 am i.e. after the occurrence of the above stated
accident and the vehicle was already seized in FIR no.
49/12. Vide letter dated 28.06.2012 written by Jeewan
Agarwal it was indicated that the pre-insurance inspection
report was carried out by defendant no. 7 on 10.04.2012 in
PS Ballabhgarh, Sadar, Haryana. The plaintiff eventually
detected the fraud on receipt of MACT petition titled as
Renu Gupta Vs. Lekhram & Ors arising out of FIR No.
49/12. It got revealed that the said vehicle owned by
defendant no. 6 was insured on 10.04.2012 on the basis of
cover note dated 09.04.2012 prepared by Sh. Ajay Agarwal
and Sh. Ashish Bansal at the instance of defendant no. 7.
5. The company issued the policy in the name of defendant no.
6 as all the documents were received in the plaintiff’s office
and because the company or the plaintiff did not have the
knowledge of forgery and cheating committed to obtain the
insurance policy. Plaintiff was under instructions to issue
insurance policy in lieu of motor insurance cover note in
terms of MOU dated 03.03.2012 and on the basis of
documents submitted by defendant no. 6 and 7.
6. After the receipt of the summons from MACT, the plaintiff
gave written complaint to PS Sunlight Colony and Senior
Officers of Delhi Police on 19.09.2012 and 16.01.2013
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:04:13
+0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 4 of 27
respectively regarding cheating and forgery committed by
defendant no. 6 and 7 by making misrepresentation in
obtaining policy no. 041281/31/12/01/00000364 dated
10.04.2012 in lieu of Motor Insurance Cover Note No.
041281/31/11/007213 dated 09.04.2012. The said policy
was canceled on 18.01.2018 after detection of the fraud
committed by defendant no. 6 and 7 and defendant no. 6 was
intimated to cheque refund of the cheque given by him. On
internal investigation, it was revealed that defendant no. 6
and 7 had obtained the insurance policy by hatching a
conspiracy in connivance with other accused to cause willful
loss to the insurance company with regard to insurance
claim of the deceased in Renu Gupta Vs. Lekhram & Ors.
Despite repeated requests, Jeewan Agarwal of Auto Risk
Management did not share the original inspection report and
photographs of the vehicle of defendant no. 6 and much later
sent soft copies of the same and never deposited the
originals. Thus, it became clear that fraud was committed
upon the company for which FIR no. 299/14 PS Sunlight
Colony is still pending.
7. The malicious prosecution, which is the basis of this case
was commenced by defendant no. 7 and he has filed a
frivolous complaint with PS Palwal city, Haryana vide DD
no. 14 D dated 19.07.2012 stating that his office was
situated at Palwal, Bus Stand, Haryana. Thereafter, the
defendant no. 7 filed complaint under section 156(3) read
with Section 200 CrPC before the Ld. JMFC, Palwal,
Haryana which was declined. On a preliminary inquiry, it
was found that the complaint pertained to the jurisdiction of
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.08.02
15:04:21
+0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 5 of 27
PS Camp, Palwal, Haryana. Thereafter, defendant no. 7 filed
another complaint dated 08.10.2012 with PS Camp, Palwal,
Haryana stating that the incident dated 10.04.2012 took
place at his residence Krishna Colony, Palwal, Haryana.
Thus, two contrary versions with respect to the alleged
averments have been made by defendant no. 7, though no
such incident had ever taken place as alleged in FIR no.
374/12.
8. In pursuant to his complaint with PS Camp, Palwal, the
defendant no. 7 approached defendant no. 5 who in
connivance with defendant no. 7 recorded the statement of
defendant no. 7 on 08.10.2012, on the basis of which FIR
no. 374/12 dated 08.10.2012 was registered with PS Camp,
Palwal under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC, much
after, the complaint of the plaintiff given to PS Sunlight
Colony. Although, the name of the plaintiff was not initially
mentioned in the said FIR, the said was added on the basis
of disclosure statements of other co-accused persons. Thus,
defendant no. 6 and 7 in connivance with defendant no. 2 to
5 hatched up the conspiracy in filing the impugned FIR. As
such, the plaintiff was victimized by the conspiracy of the
defendants.
9. The plaintiff was exonerated vide departmental inquiry
report dated 05.02.2016 on the same issues inquired by the
Vigilance Department of the Company and in fact the
plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Administrative Officer
on 18.11.2015.
10. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff was solely and falsely
framed on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.08.02
15:04:29 +0530CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 6 of 27
accused in the FIR no. 374/12. As the police of PS Sunlight
Colony did not take any action on his complaint dated
19.09.2012 and 16.01.2013, the defendants no. 6 and 7 got
the knowledge of the same and succeeded in implicating the
plaintiff falsely in FIR no. 374/12.
11. On filing of the chargesheet, case FIR no. 374/12, the Ld.
Trial Court vide order dated 07.06.2013, summoned
defendant no. 7 as additional accused under section 319/190
Cr.PC at the initial stage itself based upon a prima-facie
view that defendant no. 6 and 7 had hatched the conspiracy
to cheat the company on the basis of the forged documents.
12. The plaintiff was arrested on 03.04.2013 in case FIR no.
374/12 and was released on bail on 22.05.2013. Although,
the arrest of the plaintiff was intimated to the jurisdictional
PS being Sunlight Colony but the defendants no. 4 and 5
failed to intimate the officials of the plaintiff’s company.
Thus, it is clear that all the defendants were in connivance
with each other. This fact came to suffice not only in case
FIR no. 374/12 but also in 299/14 and it became clear that
defendant no. 6 and 7 has submitted forged documents for
obtaining insurance policy no. 041281/31/12/01/00000364
dated 10.04.2012 in lieu of Motor Insurance Cover Note No.
041281/31/11/007213 dated 09.04.2012. The said policy
was canceled on 18.01.2013 and the same was intimated to
defendant no. 6.
13. The Senior Officers of the plaintiff’s Company vide letter
dated 22.04.2013 addressed to SHO Palwal Camp and SP
Palwal informed them that in an independent inhouse
inquiry, they have come to the conclusion that there was no
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.08.02
15:04:36 +0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 7 of 27
role of the plaintiff in FIR no. 374/12. No necessary action
pursuant to such information was carried out by defendant
no. 2 to 5 nor any statements of the Senior Officers of the
Company acquainted with the facts were recorded. Despite
various subsequent letters to SHO PS Palwal Camp, SP
Palwal and IG Rewari intimating that plaintiff had no role in
the FIR, no action was taken by defendant no 2 to 5.
14. The Ld. Trial Court framed the charges against the plaintiffs
and others in FIR no. 374/12 and examined 23 witnesses.
The trial took 6 years to conclude. Finally, vide judgment
dated 23.10.2018, the Ld. Trial Court acquitted the plaintiff
and others finding that defendant no. 4 and 5 misuse their
official position by framing the plaintiff in the said case at
the instance of defendant no. 7, who was made an accused
by the Ld. Trial court at the initial stage itself. Further, the
prosecution was launched by the defendant no. 4 and 5, at
the instance of defendant no. 7 without collection of any
evidence. Further, defendant no. 4 and 5 neither obtained
necessary sanction under Section 197 CrPC nor examined a
single witness from the office of the plaintiff even though
the plaintiff was continuously working with a Company
which shows that defendant no. 1 to 7 were working in
connivance with each other and withheld and twisted the
facts just to falsely implicate the plaintiff in the said case.
15. Thus, it is clear that in light of judgment dated 23.10.2018
and the independent inquiry conducted by the company that
the plaintiff was willfully and deliberately implicated in the
false case of FIR no. 374/12 as he was discharging his
official duty in terms of the directions of the Company and
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:04:48
+0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 8 of 27
in terms of MOU dated 03.03.2012.
16. The plaintiff had to undergo mental agony and sufferings
caused by the trial in case FIR no. 374/12 for about six years
which has disturbed his entire career as well as attached
stigma in front of his family, friends and well-wishers. On
these grounds, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking
damages of Rs. 50 lacs against the defendants for being
wrongfully and maliciously prosecuted by the defendants.
17. During the proceedings of the case, Defendant nos. 2 & 3
were dropped from the arrays of parties vide order dated
30.11.2019. Defendants no.1, 4, 5 & 7 got proceeded Ex-
Parte vide order 30.08.2022.
18. Summons was issued to the other defendants and only
defendant no. 6 filed his written statement.
Written Statement of Defendant No. 6:
19. Defendant no. 6 in his written statement has taken
preliminary objections as to the lack of cause of action in
filing the present suit and the fact that this Court does not
have territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
20. On the factual aspect, defendant no. 6 has stated that he is
aware of the passing of the MACT award dated 11.02.2015.
The allegations of cheating the insurance company or
connivance between the defendants has been denied. It is
further stated that the insurance policy was rightly granted
by the insurance company, but to save itself from the
liability likely to be imposed upon the insurance company,
the policy was illegally cancelled on 18.01.2013. The
defendant no. 6 has further denied that any back dating of
the insurance policy took place. It is further stated that there
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.08.02
15:04:56 +0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 9 of 27
was no role of the defendant no. 6 in initiating or continuing
the prosecution against the plaintiff and that the defendant
no. 6 was himself implicated in the said case. The allegation
of connivance between the defendants is also denied. On
these basis, it is stated that neither the defendant no. 6
initiated the prosecution against the plaintiff nor the
defendant no. 6 took any action or made any statement
implicating the plaintiff and as such, no case of malicious
prosecution is made out against the defendant no. 6.
ISSUES:-
(i) Whether the present suit is filed without any cause of
action? OPD6.
(ii) Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try
the present suit? OPD 6.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages as
prayed in clause (a)? OPP.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest as prayed for
in clause (b)? OPP.
(v) Relief.
EVIDENCE:-
21. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence. Plaintiff has
examined himself as PW 1 and exhibited the following
documents:-
(1) Certified copy of judgment dated 23.10.2018 in case
FIR No.374/12 as Ex.PW1/A (running in 13 pages).
(2) Certified copy of charge-sheet of case FIR No.374/12
and copy FIR No.374/12 registered at the instance of
defendant as Ex.PW1/B (running in 29 pages).
(3) Certified copy of arrest memo dated 03.04.2013 and
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:05:05
+0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 10 of 27
intimation vide DD no/67-B dated 3.04.2013 given to PS
Sunlight Colony as Ex.PW1/C (running in 4 pages).
(4) Certified copy of order dated 07.06.2013 vide which
defendant no.7 was also arrayed as an accused in case FIR
No.374/12 as Ex.PW1/D (running in 4 pages).
(5) Certified copy of complete order-sheets of
proceedings conducted by the Ld. Trial Court in case FIR
No.374/12 and also before the Ld. Sessions Judge vide
Criminal Revision No.153/2015 are exhibited as Ex.PW1/E
(running in 110 pages).
(6) Certified copy of complete set of vehicle policy
No.041281/31/12/01/00000364 dated 10.04.2012 in lieu of
Motor Insurance Cover Note 0412281/31/11/007213 dated
09.04.2012 issued for vehicle bearing No.HR-30J-6311
(Bolero VLX) in the name of defendant no.6 as Ex.PW1/F
(running in 6 pages).
(7) Photocopy of letter dated 01.03.2012 vide
acknowledgment receipt of cover note given to M/s
Shreyansh Insurance Broker Pvt. Ltd. Duly received by him
on 03.03.2012 is marked as Mark-1. (Ex.PW1/G stands de-
exhibited).
(8) Certified copy of MOU dated 03.03.2012 signed
between the plaintiff’s company and M/s Automotives India
as Ex.PW1/H (running in 3 pages).
(9) Letter/email dated 17.05.2012 written by plaintiff to
Jeevan Aggarwal, MD of M/s Auto Risk Management to
provide photographs of inspection of vehicle owned by
defendant no.6 are exhibited as Ex.PW1/I (running in 2
pages).
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:06:17
+0530CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 11 of 27
(10) Emails dated 28.05.2012 sent by plaintiff to his senior
officer, Sh. Shyam Singh as Ex.PW1/J (running in 2 pages).
(11) Admission of guilt by defendant no.7 through his
emails dated 25.05.2012, 18.06.2012, 09.07.2012,
16.07.2012 and 30.07.2012 to plaintiff are exhibited as
Ex.PW1/K (running in 6 pages).
(12) Certified copy letter dated 28.06.2012 written by Sh.
Jeevan Aggarwal, MD qua employment of defendant no.7
exhibited and Certified copy of order dated 04.10.2012
passed by Ld. JMC, Palwal, Haryana are exhibited as
Ex.PW1/L (colly).
(13) Photocopy of investigation report dated 01.07.2012
qua vehicle No. HR-30J-6311 on the basis of letters dated
23.06.2012 and 28.06.2012 is marked as Mark-X/1.
(running in 5 pages).
(14) Photocopy of complaint dated 19.07.2012 vide DD
No.14-D filed by defendant no.7, PS Palwal City, Haryana is
marked as Mark-X/2. (running in 3 pages).
(15) Certified copy of bail order dated 21.05.2013 of the
plaintiff in case FIR No.374/12 as Ex.PW1/M.
(16) Letter dated 18.01.2013 vide which plaintiff cancelled
the aforesaid insurance policy along with letters dated
17.01.2013 and 14.03.2013 for refund of cheque, as fraud
was found by plaintiff is marked as Mark-X/3.
(17) Certified copy of letters dated 26.04.2013 and
06.05.2013 written by plaintiff to SHO, PS Palwal Camp
and SP Palwal and IG, Riwari in respect of FIR NO.374/12
are exhibited as Ex.PW1/N. (running in 8 pages).
(18) Authority letter dated 18.09.2012 for filing criminal
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:06:27
+0530CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 12 of 27
case against defendants no.6 & 7 on the basis of which FIR
NO.299/14 dated 15.05.2014 was registered is marked as
Mark-X/4.
(19) Certified copy of FIR No.299/14 registered on the
basis of complaints dated 18.09.2012 and 16.01.2013 is
marked as Mark-X/5.
(20) Certified copy of the MACT Award dated 11.02.2015
arising out of FIR NO.49/2012 U/s 279/304-A IPC, PS
Ballabhgarh, Haryana as Ex.PW1/O.
(21) Certified copy of proclamation order dated
24.03.2015 passed by Ld. Trial Court, Palwal in case FIR
NO.374/2012 and the order of Ld. Presiding Officer dated
11.04.2017 in case FIR No.299/14 against defendant no.7 as
Ex.PW1/P.
(22) The promotion letter dated 18.11.2015 along with
joining letter dated 27.11.2015 are marked as Mark-X/6.
(23) The independent enquiry conducted by the plaintiff
company and its detailed report dated 05.02.2016
exonerating the plaintiff of the charges is marked as Mark-
X/7.
(24) The order dated 12.09.2017 in Revision Petition
No.584/17 arising out of case FIR No.299/14 as Ex.PW1/Q.
(25) The legal notice dated 07.02.2019 issued to
defendants along with postal delivery report are exhibited as
Ex.PW1/R (colly).
22. In his cross examination, plaintiff, PW1 has admitted that
the defendant no. 6 was not the complainant in FIR No.
374/12, Ex. PW1/B and that the defendant no. 6 was himself
an accused in the said FIR. He further admitted that there is
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:06:36
+0530CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 13 of 27
no disclosure statement of defendant no. 6 on record which
shows that the defendant no. 6 named the plaintiff as an
accused in the underlying FIR.
23. Thereafter, official of United India Insurance Company Ltd.
was examined as PW2 and exhibited the following
documents:-
(I) Certified copy of investigation report dated 01.07.2012
qua vehicle No. HR 30 J 6311 on the basis of letters dated
23.06.2012 and 28.06.2012 is Ex PW2/A(already marked as
Mark X 1).
(2) Certified copy of letter dated 18.01.2013 regarding
cancellation of insurance policy No.
041281/31/12/01/00000364 addressed to Sh. Shamsher
Singh, defendant no. 6 is Ex PW2/B (already marked as
mark X3).
(3) Certified copy of the independent disciplinary
proceedings conducted by plaintiff company along with its
detailed report dated 05.02.2016 is Ex PW2/C (already
marked as mark X 7) vide which the plaintiff was
exonerated from the charges levelled against him.
24. Thereafter, HC Naveen Kumar from the IG office Rewari
was examined as PW3 and exhibited the following
documents:-
(1) Report dated 26.042013 is Ex PW3/A(running into 26
pages).
(2) Complaint dated 06.05.2013 and its report dated
02.02.2014 are Ex PW3/B (colly) running into 4 pages.
25. Thereafter, PW4, from PS Camo, Palwal was examined and
stated in his evidence that he had not brought the summoned
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:06:46
+0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 14 of 27
official record. As per office order dated 23.03.2018, ex
PW4/A, the summoned record is of the year 2013 and the
same has been weeded out.
26. Thereafter, D6W1 examined and tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit which is Ex. D6W1/1. In his cross
examination, D6W1 has stated that he took the insurance
policy from defendant no. 7 but denied that the same was
obtained by submitting forged documents. He further
denied that the inspection report was back dated or that the
same was conducted when the vehicle was in the custody of
the police on 10.04.2012.
Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff:
27. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the Plaintiff was
working as the Branch Incharge of United India Insurance
Company Limited at Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. As per the
policy of the company, the agents of the company were
permitted to issue motor insurance cover notes where the
renewal was sought before the lapsing of the policy. In case,
there was a break in insurance, there was a requirement of
pre-insurance inspection of the vehicle concerned and only
thereafter, the agent could issue the motor insurance cover
note.
28. In the present case, Defendant no. 7 was the agent of the
insurance company and Defendant no. 6 was the owner of
the vehicle which got insured without the mandatory
inspection in case of break in the insurance. At the time of
the insurance, the vehicle had already met with an accident
and was lying under the custody of the jurisdictional police
station. As soon as the Plaintiff and the insurance company
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:06:55
+0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 15 of 27
came to know of the said fraud, the insurance of the vehicle
was cancelled.
29. Thereafter, the Defendant no. 7 filed a false and frivolous
FIR, alleging that Defendant no. 6 forced him to issue the
cover note in connivance with one Ajay Agarwal and Ashish
Bansal. It is submitted that to cover up his misdeeds, the
Defendant no.6 filed the false and frivolous FIR. During the
investigation of the said FIR, both Defendant nos.6 & 7
implicated the Plaintiff in their disclosure statements and as
such the Plaintiff was made an accused in the said FIR. It is
submitted that Defendant nos. 4 & 5 were in the
investigation team and in connivance with Defendant nos. 6
& 7 have wrongly implicated the Plaintiff in the said case.
Further, there was no reasonable and probable cause for the
Defendants to have acted against the Plaintiff which shows
that the conduct of the Defendants was malicious. As the
Plaintiff has been acquitted in the said case and the same
was initiated and continued by Defendant nos. 4 to 7,
without any reasonable cause and with malice, the Plaintiff
is entitled to the damages suffered by him and the present
suit deserves to be decreed.
30. Plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Ram Nath v Bashir-ud-Din ILR (Punjab Series) 1952
Vol VII Pg. 8
(ii) S. Nambi Narayanan v Siby Mathews & Ors. CA No.
6637-6638 of 2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of IndiaDigitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:07:04
+0530CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 16 of 27
Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the Defendant No. 6:
31. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant no.6, the contested Defendant
has submitted that the Plaintiff has failed to show that the
proceedings were instituted or continued by the Defendant
no.6. Further, in his cross-examination, the Plaintiff has
stated that no disclosure statement of Defendant no.6 has
been placed on record by him. Further, the Plaintiff has
admitted that there is no material on record to show that
Defendant no.6 had hatched any conspiracy against the
Plaintiff. As such, no role of Defendant no.6 has been shown
by the Plaintiff. As the Defendant no.6 did not initiate or
continued the proceedings against the Plaintiff, the question
of lack of reasonable and cognizable cause or the Defendant
no.6 acting maliciously does not arise. Thus, the Plaintiff
has not been able to show any cause of action against
Defendant no.6.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING:-
32. To establish the case of malicious prosecution, Plaintiff has
to prove the following ingredients constituting the tort:
1. That the Plaintiff was prosecuted by the Defendant.
2. The prosecution terminated in favour of the Plaintiff.
3. The prosecution was instituted or continued without any
just or reasonable cause.
4. That the prosecution was instituted or continued with
malice.
5. That the Plaintiff suffered damages to his reputation or
property due to prosecution by the Defendant.
33. Thus, what has to be ascertained is whether the Plaintiff has
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.08.02
15:07:13
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. +0530Page No. 17 of 27
been able to show from the facts of the present case that all
the ingredients mentioned above are fulfilled.
34. As far as the Defendants prosecuting the Plaintiff, only the
role of Defendant no.1, 4, 5, 6 & 7 has to be ascertained as
the other Defendants were deleted from the case. The FIR
was initiated by Defendant no.7 alleging that Defendant
no.6 in connivance with the agents of the insurance
company had played fraud on the company by back dating
the inspection report as well as the insurance cover note. At
the time of filing of the FIR, the Plaintiff was not named as
an accused by the Defendant no.7. Later on, during
investigation, the Plaintiff was made an accused in the said
case and the Defendant no.7/ the complainant was also made
an accused in the said FIR.
35. In the plaint and during arguments, it has been submitted
that the name of the Plaintiff got arrayed as an accused on
the basis of disclosure statements given by Defendant nos. 6
& 7. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the
Defendant no.7 did not name the Plaintiff either in his
complaint or in any statement made before the police or the
court.
36. Further, in his cross-examination, the Plaintiff has admitted
that as far as his knowledge, he was not made an accused in
FIR no.374/12 on the basis of disclosure statement of
Defendant no.6. He further admitted that he has not placed
any document on record to show that Defendant no.6
hatched any conspiracy against him or gave any statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. implicating the Plaintiff.
37. Thus, it is clear that Defendant no.6 neither initiated the
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:07:27
+0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 18 of 27
proceedings against the Plaintiff nor had any role in
implication of the Plaintiff in the said FIR. There is nothing
on record to show that Defendant no.6 took any step which
resulted in implication of the Plaintiff in the said FIR.
38. As per the case of the Plaintiff, Defendant no.7 was the
original complainant in the FIR and was an agent of the
insurance company for the purpose of conducting pre-
insurance inspection. Defendant no.7 filed the FIR,
however, the Plaintiff was not named as an accused by the
Defendant no.7 who had only stated in his FIR that
Defendant no.6 wanted to get his vehicle insured after it had
met with an accident after the expiry of the previous
insurance. He has stated in the FIR that a pre-insurance
inspection was mandatory and the Defendant no.6 forced
him to prepare a pre-dated inspection report. When he came
to know about the pre-dating of report, he protested,
however, Defendant no.6 and his associates forcefully got
the pre-insurance inspection report prepared from the
Defendant no.7 in back date. Nothing in the FIR shows that
the Defendant no.7 implicated the name of the Plaintiff in
the said FIR. No statement of Defendant no.7 is on record
which shows that the Defendant no.7 implicated the Plaintiff
as an accused in the present case. Thus, there is nothing on
record to show that Defendant no.7 had initiated or
continued the prosecution of FIR no.374/12 against the
Plaintiff.
39. Thus, the above discussion reveals that no cause for
initiating FIR no.374/12 or the continuous prosecution of the
same can be levied on Defendant nos. 6 & 7. Both these
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.08.02
15:07:35 +0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 19 of 27
Defendants are the only private Defendants in the present
case. The Defendant no.7 initiated the FIR against
Defendant no.6 as the owner of the vehicle. During
investigation, the investigative team found that the policy
was issued by the Plaintiff and as such arrayed the Plaintiff
as accused and filed the chargesheet against the Plaintiff and
other accused.
40. The liability of Defendant nos. 4 & 5 is stated to have arisen
because of connivance between Defendant nos.4, 5, 6 and 7.
As the Defendant nos. 6 & 7 cannot be said to have initiated
any proceedings against the Plaintiff, the onus of proving the
connivance with the investigating team was on the Plaintiff.
41. The said connivance was to be proved by the Plaintiff to
show that there was no probable and reasonable cause in
initiating or continuing the proceedings against the Plaintiff
and the same were affected by malice.
42. This brings us to the other important ingredients which the
Plaintiff needs to prove i.e. lack of probable cause and
presence of malice.
43. As far as the lack of probable cause is concerned, it appears
from the record that the Plaintiff was implicated in the case
as he was the Incharge of the branch which had issued the
insurance policy to the Defendant no.6. Ex.PW-1/F reveals
that the insurance policy was issued for the period
10.04.2012 to 09.04.2013 on 20.04.2012 after receipt of
payment via cheque dated 16.04.2012. As the amount was
received after the issuance of cover note, the investigating
team made the Plaintiff as an accused being the branch
manager of the issuing branch. Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.08.02
15:07:43
+0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 20 of 27
44. Thus, to prove the liability of defendants no.4 & 5, the
plaintiff had to show that defendant no.6 & 7 were in active
connivance with defendants no. 4 & 5 and defendants no.4
& 5 only on the instigation of defendants no.6 & 7 and not
on the performance of their duty arrayed the plaintiff as an
accused in the said FIR.
45. No such evidence has been placed on record by the plaintiff
which would show that defendants no.4 & 5 acted beyond
their scope of initial duty and in connivance with other
defendants and made plaintiff as an accused. At the stage
of investigation, what came in front of the investigating
team was that there is an allegation of pre-dating of the
inspection report and as the insurance policy was issued by
plaintiff, the plaintiff was made an accused in the present
case. The plaintiff did not thoroughly check the inspection
report and only relied upon copy of the inspection report as
well as the cover-note issueed without going into the actual
original inspection report and its annexures which is evident
from the various emails written by the plaintiff as demanded
in Ex.PW1/I& Ex.PW1/J.
46. Thus, at the time of investigation, the material available
before the investigating team was that the allegation pre-
dated has been made and the insurance policy had been
issued based upon pre-dated inspection report. Thus, what
appears is that the plaintiff could not show any concrete
evidence of any conspiracy between the investigating team
and the private defendants. Thus, what can be said is that
there was probable and reasonable cause with defendants
no.4 & 5 to conduct proceedings against the plaintiff.
Digitally signed
RAHUL by RAHUL
BHATIA
BHATIA 2025.08.02
Date:
15:07:52 +0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 21 of 27
47. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charges were framed
against the accused persons including the plaintiff vide order
dated 03.07.2015. The plaintiff challenged the said order in
the Criminal Revision before the court of Ld. ASJ, and the
Ld. Court after hearing the parties came to a conclusion that
this was not fit case for discharge of the plaintiff. Certain
observations with respect to the conduct of the plaintiff have
been recorded in the said order. It has been held in the
Revision Petition that while issuing the policy, the plaintiff
was required to take steps that all the documents were in
order and the premium was also encashed in favour of the
insurance company. As the allegation in the FIR was that
pre-dated inspection report has been prepared and based
upon the same, insurance policy was also issued, Ld.
Revisionist Court found that sufficient material was
available for the charges framed against the plaintiff. Thus,
not only record shows that there was probable cause for
defendants no.4 & 5 to conduct investigation, the same has
also been held by the Ld. Revisionist Court that the material
produced along with the charge-sheet was sufficient to
frame charges against the plaintiff.
48. In view of above facts, it cannot be said that prosecution
initiated against the plaintiff was done without any
reasonable cause by any of the defendants.
49. As far as malice is concerned, once it is established that
defendants no.6 & 7 i.e. private defendants had not initiated
proceedings against the plaintiff and there was probable
cause for defendants no.4 & 5 to conduct their investigation,
proof of malice was the burden on the plaintiff and the
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:08:01
+0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 22 of 27
plaintiff had to show that even if there existed any probable
cause, the prosecution on said FIR was infact malicious. No
such evidence has been produced by the plaintiff to attribute
any malice on any of the charges.
50. Thus, not only there was probable cause to initiate /
investigate in FIR No. 299/14, the plaintiff has not been
able to show that action of on any of the defendant was done
with malicious.
51. Further, the plaintiff has based his whole case on the fact
that defendant no.6, the owner of the impugned vehicle in
connivance with defendant no.7 had obtained pre-dated
inspection report and as such, there was malice and
connivance between the two defendants and the police
officials. However, vide judgment dated 23.10.2018,
Ex.PW1/A, the Ld. Trial Court has held that the accused
have been acquitted because of the reason that it could not
be proved that the inspection report was pre-dated or that the
vehicle policy, Ex.PW1/F was obtained on pre-dated
insurance report or by cheating the insurance company. The
plaintiff was an accused in the said case and multiple
opportunities were granted to the accused to lead their
evidence. However, the plaintiff did not lead any evidence
in the said trial to show that the inspection report was pre-
dated. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court has held that it has not been
proved in the criminal case that the inspection report has
been pre-dated.
52. The plaintiff has benefited from the observations of the Ld.
Trial Court that the inspection report was not pre-dated and
now these proceedings are based upon the alleged malice of
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:08:09
+0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 23 of 27
defendants no.6 & 7 and on the ground that the inspection
report was pre-dated. Two Courts after examining the
evidence and hearing the parties have held that the said
inspection report is not pre-dated. The plaintiff’s case is
based upon the fact that the defendants no.6 & 7 pre-dated
the inspection report and thereby the convenience between
them is established. However, neither the plaintiff has
proved the pre-dating of the inspection report in the case nor
the same has been proved to be pre-dated in any of the case.
The plaintiff cannot be allowed to take benefit of the fact
that the inspection report was not pre-dated and got
acquitted in the criminal case and now claim in these
proceedings that the inspection report was infact pre-dated
which shows the malice between the defendants. As such,
the plaintiff has not been able to show that there any malice
or malicious intention of any of the parties which has caused
the prosecution in the FIR No.299/2014.
53. Coming to the judgments cited by the plaintiff, in Ram Nath
(supra), the Hon’ble Punjab High Court held as follows:
“The essential ingredients of an action for damages for
malicious prosecution are well known and well
understood. A person who wishes to recover damages
to person, property or reputation must establish that he
sustained injury by reason of previous proceeding
which was commenced or continued without reasonable
and probable cause, but with malice, and which has
terminated in favour of the plaintiff. These elements
must all unite in order to produce liability. Reasonable
and probable cause may be defined to mean reasonable
grounds for suspicion supported lay circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant any
ordinary prudent and cautious man in the belief that the
person charged with the crime was probably guilty of
the offence with which he is charged. There can be no
reasonable and probable cause unless the defendant
genuinely and honestly believed that the prosecution, or
Digitally signed
RAHUL by RAHUL
BHATIA
BHATIA Date: 2025.08.02
15:08:20 +0530CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 24 of 27
other proceeding complained of, was justifiable. Malice
means the presence of some improper and wrongful
motive that is to say, an intent to use the legal process
in question for some other than its legally appointed
and appropriate purpose.
As pointed out by Cave, J., in –‘Brown v. Hawkes’,
(1891) 2 QB 718 at p. 722, “malice in its widest and
vaguest sense has been said to mean any wrong or
indirect motive; and malice can be proved, either by
showing what the motive was and that it was wrong, or
by showing that the circumstances were such that the
prosecution can only be accounted for by imputing
some wrong or indirect motive to the prosecutor.” The
co-existence of malice and want of probable cause is an
essential prerequisite to the success of an action for
malicious prosecution. Malice alone, however great, is
insufficient. Want of probable cause cannot be inferred
from malice, however great such malice may be, but
malice may be implied or inferred as a fact from want
of probable cause. The question is not what the actual
facts were but what the defendant had reason to believe
they were.”
54. Thus, what this judgment says is that both malice and lack
of probable cause are required to constitute a tort of
malicious prosecution. In the present case, the plaintiff has
not been able to prove any malice from any of the
defendants and infact it has been found that there was
probable cause to continue with the proceedings against the
plaintiff and defendant no. 6 and 7 and as such this judgment
will not come in aid of the plaintiff.
55. Similarly, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nambi
Narayanan (supra) was not passed in the context of a
malicious prosecution but arose out of a Writ petition filed
by the petitioner therein. As such, the said case would also
not come in any aid of the plaintiff.
56. Based upon this discussion, the issue-wise findings are as
follows :
Digitally signed
RAHUL by RAHUL
BHATIABHATIA 2025.08.02
Date:
15:08:30 +0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 25 of 27
ISSUE NO.1:
“(i) Whether the present suit is filed without any cause of
action? OPD6.”
57. The onus of this issue was on defendant no. 6. Defendant
no.6 has not led any evidence to show that no cause of
action subsists nor any arguments have been led on this
aspect. As such, this issue is decided against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.2:
“(ii) Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try
the present suit? OPD 6.”
58. The onus of this issue was also on defendant no. 6. The
plaintiff has claimed that plaintiff was working as Branch
Incharge of the insurance company in the territorial
jurisdiction of this court and he was arrested from the
jurisdiction of this court. It is further stated that plaintiff
suffers various damages and loss to reputation within the
jurisdiction of this court, therefore, the court has jurisdiction
to try the present case. Apart from bare submissions that the
court does not have territorial jurisdiction, no concrete
arguments have been advanced by defendant no.6 to show
that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction.
59. As the plaintiff was working at the time of arrest in the
territorial jurisdiction of this court and was arrested from
within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, this court has
jurisdiction to try the present case. As such, this issue is
decided against defendant no.6.
ISSUES NO.3 & 4 :
“(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages
as prayed in clause (a)? OPP.
Digitally signed
RAHUL by RAHUL
BHATIA
BHATIA Date: 2025.08.02
15:08:38 +0530
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 26 of 27
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest as prayed for
in clause (b)? OPP.”
60. The plaintiff has sought decree of damages because of the
malicious prosecution initiated by the defendants. As
discussed herein above, the plaintiff has not been able to
show that prosecution was initiated or continued by any of
the private defendants or that the private defendants and the
police officials were in connivance with each other. Further,
at the time of initiation of investigation of FIR No.299/14,
there existed probable cause to conduct enquiry. The
plaintiff has not been able to show or impute any malice
against the defendants in the underlying investigation /
prosecution. As such, the plaintiff has failed to prove his
case of malicious prosecution or the fact that any of the
defendant was responsible for the same.
61. In view of above discussion, the plaintiff is not found
entitled to any damages. As the plaintiff is not found
entitled to any damages, the question of interest also does
not remain.
Relief:
62. In view of the above, discussion, the suit is dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
63. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
64. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
Date:
Announced in the open BHATIA 2025.08.02
15:08:48
Court on 30.07.2025 (RAHUL BHATIA)
+0530
District Judge-01(SE),
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS DJ 733/19 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Page No. 27 of 27