Delhi District Court
Sandeep Dabas Ors vs Jasram Kaim on 5 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY SINGHAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE-09: (CENTRAL):
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
In the matter of:-
CS DJ-10302-16
1. Sh. Sandeep Dabas
S/O Sh. Jaikumar Dabas
R/O : VPO Ladpur, Delhi-110081
2. Sh Mahinder Sharma
S/O Sh. Balkishan Sharma
R/O: 94, Friends Enclave
Sultanpur Majra, Delhi-110086 ...... PLAINTIFFS
Versus
Sh. Jasram Kaim
S/O Sh. Sohan Lal
R/O MCD Officer's Flat No. 50/1
Bunglow Road, Kamla Nagar,
Delhi-110007 ......DEFENDANT
Date of Institution of Suit : 30.06.2015
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 05.04.2025
SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION FOR
DEFAMATION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, the suit for damages and compensation
for defamation stand dismissed.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.1/38
PART-A
(PLAINTIFF’S CASE)
2. Before proceeding further it is pertinent to mention that the
plaint itself consist of 61 Paras running into a number of
pages and a number of Paras are devoted w.r.t functioning
of one Pragatisheel Shishak Samaj of which all the three
plaintiffs are stated to be members and the same being not
relevant for the purpose of this judgment, stand not
mentioned.
3. Similarly, a number of Paras are also devoted towards the
alleged act of the defendant as to how he got various
promotions and also promoted his wife qua which
complaints were filed by the plaintiffs with their
departments and the same also not being relevant for the
purpose of this judgment, stand not mentioned.
4. The main crux of the plaint is that the plaintiff No.1
claiming himself to be the member of the said Pragatisheel
Shishak Samaj filed certain RTI w.r.t certain alleged scams
in Education Department of Delhi Municipal Corporation
and in response to the said RTI he was informed that he can
contact the School Principal of MC Primary School, SP
Block, Pitampura Delhi for the inspection of the record.
5. It is stated that the plaintiffs accordingly contacted the said
Principal on 11.06.2014 and 13.06.2014, who granted him
permission to inspect the record.
6. It is stated that the plaintiff No.1 who was the RTI applicant
sought the assistance of plaintiff No.2 & 3 and took them
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.2/38
alone to the said school for inspection of the record.
7. It is stated that plaintiff No.1 introduced himself as RTI
applicant to the three lady teachers found present in the said
school and also told them the purpose of his visit as to
inspect the record in response to the reply dated 09.05.2014
to his RTI application dated 07.04.2014.
8. It is stated that during the course of inspection, all the three
plaintiffs noted certain illegality and tampering in the
record, at which the said three teachers called someone
telephonically and thereafter called upon the plaintiff to
leave the suit premises.
9. It is stated that subsequently on 16.06.2014, the Principal of
the said school submitted a letter of the even date with Smt.
Shanti Soren, DDE, Rohini Zone levelling false allegations
against the plaintiffs of having threatened the staff of the
school.
10. It is further stated that on 18.06.2014 the three teachers who
met the plaintiffs in the school filed a false police complaint
with PS Maurya Enclave, Pitmapura alleging that plaintiff
No.1 had misrepresented himself as an official from the
Vigilance department of MCD and stated his purpose of
visit as to audit the accounts of the school beside levelling
the allegation that all the three plaintiffs misbehaved with
them beside using abusive language and also extended
threat of sending said three teachers behind bars.
11. It is submitted that subsequently the plaintiff submitted the
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.3/38
video footage of their visit to the school with the police
authorities.
12. It is also submitted that no FIR was registered against the
plaintiff in pursuance of said complaint.
13. It is also stated that thereafter on 26.04.2014 in a meeting of
the Standing Committee of Delhi Municipal Corporation
consisting of Mayor of Delhi and other elected/ nominated
members, when a question was asked from the Adhyaksh
of the said Committee, the defendant who was at that time
an officer bearer of the MCD levelled false allegations and
passed defamatory remarks against the plaintiffs.
14. The defamatory statement allegedly made by the defendant
against the present plaintiffs in the meeting of the said
standing Committee, as narrated in the plaint, and relevant
for the purpose of this judgment are reproduced herein as
under :-
” Prithvi Singh Rathore: Adhyaksh Ji, ek jankari me aaya
hai ki pitampura me kisi school main kuch agyat logon
dwara ghuskar vahan ka record khangalne ki koshish ki
gayi. Main jankari Chahunga ki vo kaun log the? Kya pata
chala unka? Kya vo mamla kya tha? Jara uske bare mein
bataya jayeXXXXX
Jasram Kaim : Adarniya adhyaksh mahodaya, 13 tarikh ko
S.P. Block Pitampura ke school mein principal ko ek vyakti
ka telephone gaya ke main vigilance officer hun aur aapkeCS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.4/38
school ka record check karna hai. To second Saturday hai
13 tarikh ko. To vo teen log vahan pahunche. Principal ne
apni 3 lady teachers ko bulaya aur unhone 4 ghante tak
vahan record dekha. Unhone 50 usme photocopy nikali ki
inki photocopy kara do aur jab chowkidar photocopy
karana gaya, to ek teacher ne poocha ki aap second
saturday ko bhi kaam kar rahe ho? Hamari to chhutiyan
hain, aapne hame bulaya hai to apna Identity card to
dikhao. To identity card to tha nahi, to baad main unhone
bataya ki hum vigilance officer nahi hain, aapke hi teacher
saathi hain aur is prakar se ye record hum le lete hain aur
aapki madad karne ke liye aaye hainYe harassment that sir teachers ka. Unhone police mein
report karai unki aur mere ko agle din ek media se
telephone aaya sir jab maine aapko baat ki. Maine turant
standing committee chairman, additional commissioner
education aur mayor sahab ko bataya ki ek sthiti paida ho
gayi hai aur agar ,media ke dwara ye baat aapko pata chalti
hai to aapko malum hon chahiyeShiksha Vibhag se sambandhit adhikari ne bataya ki 13
tarikh ko S.P. Block, Pitampura ke school mein principal
ko kisi vyakti dwara phone gaya ki veh vigilance office se
hai aur unke school ka record check karna hai, teen log
school mein pahunche. Is dauran principal ne school ki
mahila adhyapikaon ko bhi apne karyalaya mein bula liya.
Un teen logon ne lagbhag 4 ghante tak record ko check kiya
aur record me so 50 paper ki photocopy karvane ke liye
kaha. Is par school ki ek adhyapika dwara unka parichayaCS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.5/38
patra diye jane ke liye kaha gaya to ve kehne lage ki hum
vigilance officer nahi hain, balki adhyapak hain aur is
record ko lekar adhyapakon ke sahayata hi karenge. Is
mamle ki FIR darj karva di gayi hai.
Unhone aage jankari di ki unko is mamle ki jankari media
dwara hi mili aur unhone tatkal is sare mamle ki jankari
adhyaksh sthayi Samiti tatha Atirikta Upayukta (shiksha)
ko de di gayi.
Unhone yaha bhi bataya ki thane mein ki gayi report ki
copy bhi mil gayi hai. Unhone aage bataya ki doshi
adhyapakon ke khilaf karyavai karne hetu Atrikta
Upayukta (shiksha) kp report bhej di gayi hai “.
15. It is stated that the said proceedings were also published in
the newspaper.
16. In this background, it is stated on behalf of plaintiff that the
plaintiffs No.1 & 2 were subsequently suspended from
their job as teachers and the said factum of their suspension
was also published in the newspaper.
17. Hence, as per the plaintiff, on account of such action on part
of defendant, their prestige in the eyes of their known
person has suffered a dent beside causing loss of reputation,
harassment etc. to the plaintiff No.1 & 2 who are still under
suspension, as on the date of filing of the suit and hence the
present suit for claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 5 Lacs
to each of the plaintiffs beside pendentlite and future
interest.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.6/38
18. Plaintiff No.3 expired during the course of trial and
accordingly the present suit being a suit for damages
personal to the plaintiff No.3, vide order dated 31.01.2019,
the plaintiff No.3 stand dropped from the array of the
parties, by the Ld Predecessor of this Court.
PART-B
(DEFENDANT’S CASE)
19. The defendant took the plea that as per the plaintiff the
cause of action arose on 25.06.2014 and 26.06.2014
whereas the suit itself has been filed on 30.06.2015 despite
being the fact that the prescribed period of limitation is one
year which expired on 25.06.2015.
20. The defendant also took the plea that at the time of alleged
date of cause of action he was employed with the Delhi
Municipal Corporation and accordingly his actions are
protected by the provisions of section 477/478 of DMC Act
coupled with the fact that the Delhi Municiapl Corporation
of which he was an employee, having been not impleaded,
the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party.
21. The defendant also took the stand that he never took the
name of the plaintiffs in his response to the question put to
him by the Standing Members of Delhi Municipal
Corporation Committee and accordingly is not liable
towards the relief claimed in his individual capacity.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.7/38
PART-C
(ISSUES)
22. Issues were framed vide order dated 17.12.2015.
i. Whether the suit is beyond the period of limitation i.e
one year? (OPD.
ii. Whether the suit is bade for non joinder of parties I.e
NDMC? OPD.
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation
and damages as asked for in the plaint? If yes, the
extent thereof? OPP.
iv. Relief.
PART-D
(PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE)
23. Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW-1 & proved on
record the following documents :-
1. Ex PW1/A Affidavit of evidence.
2. Ex PW1/1 Photocopy of Identity Card.
3. EX Documents pertaining to above
PW1/2(colly), issue of grant of illegal seniority.
later on
Marked as
Mark A & B.
4. EX PW1/3 Documents pertaining to the issue
of illegal allotment of office quarter
5. EX PW1/4 Photocopy of complaint dated
19.05.2014.
6. Ex PW1/5 Complaint dated 17.11.2013
7. EX PW1/7 Copy of RTI reply dated 09.05.2014
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.8/38
bears the signature of Smt. Shanti
Soren
8. Ex Photocopy of RTI application and
PW1/8(colly) copy of complaint dated
18.06.2014.
9. EX Photocopy of letter dated
PW1/9(colly) 19.06.2014
10. EX PW1/10 Relevant pages if departmental
(colly) proceeding file
11. Ex PW1/11 DVD containing the relevant audio
Video Footage of the meeting of
Standing Committee held on
25.06.2014.
12. Ex PW1/11-A Two DVDs brought by summoned
&B witness Sh Ravi Malhotra, Head
Clerk, Municipal Secretary Office,
NDMC. Civic Centre
13. Ex PW1/12 Written Transcript of meeting dated
25.06.2014.
14. EX PW1/13 Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act in respect of the above
DVD containing the relevant audio
video footages of the meeting of
Standing Committee held on
25.06.2014 & 02.07.2014
15. EX PW1/14 Written Transcript of the statement
of Sh Prithvi Singh Rathore dated
02.07.2014.
16. EX PW1/15 Photocopy of suspension Order.
17. EX Documents pertaining to this matter
PW1/16(colly
18. EX PW1/17 Photocopy of newspaper published
on 09.07.2014 in Deshbandhu
Newspaper
19. EX PW1/18 Photocopy of news published on
09.07.2014 in Dainik Jagran.
20. EX Photocopy of minutes of meeting of
PW1/19(colly) standing committee of NDMC held
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.9/38
on 25.06.2014 & 02.07.2014 along
with RTI application and its reply
and receipts
21. EX PW1/20 Office copy of legal notice sent to
the defendant.
22. EX PW1/21 Postal receipt
23. EX PW1/22 Postal receipt showing the dispatch
of above legal notice.
24. EX PW1/23 Print out taken from the web site of
Indian Post showing the delivery of
above legal notice.
25. EX PW1/24 Reply sent by defendant to the
plaintiff.
26. EX PW1/25 Photocopy of Police Investigation
report along with RTI application
and its reply.
27. EX Photocopy of certified copy of order
PW1/26(colly) dated 09.01.2015 & 24.01.2025
passed by Sh. Sachin Sangwan, Ld.
MM, Tis Hazari.
28. EX PW1/27 Photocopy of documents pertaining
to departmental inquiry and action
thereof.
29. EX Order dated 29.01.2013 &
PW1/28(colly) 01.03.2013 of appellant authorities
under RTI Act.
30. EX Photocopy of another RTI
PW1/29(colly) application dated 26.06.2013
31. EX PW1/30 Photocopy of RTI reply dated
23.12.2014 pertaining to Delhi
Darshan Scam.
32. EX PW1/31 The complaint against the defendant
in respect of re-allotment of
Municipal accommodation.
33. Ex PW1/32 The CD-ROM containing
conversation dated 11.06.2014 &
13.06.2014
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.10/38
34. EX PW1/33 Certificate u/s 65B of Indian
Evidence Act in respect of aforesaid
CD.
35. EX PW1/34 Two DVDs containing video
footage showing aforesaid
conversation held on 14.06.2014.
36. EX PW1/35 Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian
Evidence Act.
37. EX The attested copies of documents
PW1/36(colly) showing/containing irregularities
such as Teacher’s Attendance.
38. EX Complaint dated 09.07.2014.
PW1/37(colly
39. EX PW1/38 Attendance register for the period
April, 2011 to October,2012.
40. EX PW1/39 The hobby fund register for the
period March, 2009 to July,2012.
24. The PW-1 deposed along the lines of the stand taken in the
suit.
25. Plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW-2 & proved on
record the following documents :-
1. EX PW2/A Affidavit of evidence
2. EX.PW2/1 Photocopy of I Card.
3. EX PW2/2 Photocopy of suspension order
4. EX PW2/3 Office copy of legal notice sent to
defendant.
5. EX PW2/4 Postal receipt of legal notice.
6. Ex PW2/5 The Print out taken from the website
of Indian post/tracker report
showing the delivery of article.
7. EX PW2/6 The acknowledgment card showing
the receipt of legal notice along with
its envelope.
8. EX PW2/7(a) Reply to legal notice.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.11/38
& (b)
9. EX PW2/8 Office copy of rejoinder.
10. Ex PW2/9 Two postal receipts showing
dispatch of rejoinder
26. Plaintiffs also examined one Sh Kamal Kant Kaushik as
PW-3 who proved on record the following documents :-
1. EX PW3/A Affidavit of evidence
2. EX PW3/1 Photocopy of driving license
3. EX PW3/2 Photocopy of legal notice.
4. EX PW3/3 Postal receipt of legal notice
5. EX PW3/4 Copy of print out taken from
website of Indian Post showing the
delivery of article.
27. Plaintiffs also examined one Sh Naresh Garg as PW-4 who
proved on record the following documents :-
1. EX PW4/A Affidavit of evidence.
2. EX PW1/2 Complaint made to SHO PS
(colly) Kamla Market dated 08.05.2014
3. EX PW1/3 Complaint dated 10.06.2013 to
SHO Police Station Kamla Market
4. Ex PW1/31 Complaint made to Anti Corruption
Branch.
5. EX Complaint dated 09.07.2014.
PW1/37(colly)
PART-E
(DEFENDANT EVIDENCE)
28. Defendant examined himself as DW-1 and proved on
record the following documents :-
1. EX DW1/A Affidavit of evidence
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.12/38
2. EX DW1/1 Photocopy of Aadhar Card
3. Ex De-exhibited and marked as Mark
DW1/2(colly) D1 (colly) being photocpy of
judgment dated 05.01.2012 passed
by CAT and photocopy of
notification No.
CED/AC/HC/Edu/2012/07 dated
01.01.2013
4. EX DW1/3 De-exhibited and marked as mark
D2 being photocopy of notification,
office order and CED order.
5. EX DW1/4 De- exhibited and marked as Mark-
D3 being photocopy of proceedings
qua cancellation of grant of
seniority of Ms Suman Bala.
6. Ex DW1/5 De-exhibited and marked as Mark-
D4 being photocopies of application
dated 16.05.2014 of Ms Suman Bala
and MCD orders dated 17.10.2013,
17.01.2013, reply by north MCD to
complaint against Sh Jasram Kaim
AD (Education) and Smt Suman
Bala and other NDMC official dated
24.09.2014 addressed to Hemant
Kumar Mishra, Inspector Anti
Corruption Branch and Allotment
letter dated 17.06.2014.
7. EX DW1/6 De-exhibited and marked as Mark
D-5 i.e photocopy of complaints
dated 24.07.2014 by Ms Santosh
Gupta, complaint dated 10.11.2014
by Principal to DDE (Education)
(HQ), complaint dated 10.11.2014
by Anju Arora to DDE, letter dated
10.11.2014 by Ms Santosh Gupta.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.13/38
PART-F
(FINDINGS/CONCLUSION)
29. Heard. Considered.
30. Issue No.1-Whether the suit is beyond the period of
limitation i.e one year? (OPD.
31. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant who
has taken the plea to the effect that as per the plaintiff the
cause of action allegedly arose on 25.06.2014 and
26.06.2014 whereas the suit itself has been filed on
29.06.2015 and as per the provisions of article 75 & 76 of
Part VI of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the limitation
period is one year which expired on 25.06.2015 and as such
the suit is barred by law of limitation.
32. It is an admitted fact that the District Courts remains closed
for summer vacations till 30th June of every year and
accordingly the suit having been filed on 29.06.2015 i.e
during the summer vacation period cannot be stated to be
barred by law of limitations but rather is protected by virtue
of section 4 of the Limitation Act itself.
33. Issue No.1 is decided against the defendant.
34. Issue No.2-Whether the suit is bade for non joinder of
parties i.e NDMC? OPD.
35. This issue has been framed on account of the objection
taken by the defendant to the effect that whatever
submission has been made by him before the Standing
Committee of Delhi Municipal Corporation were made by
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.14/38
him in response to the queries put by the members of the
said committee to the Adhyakash of the same and on being
asked, he in his official capacity has answered the same and
as such as per the defendant, he being an employee of Delhi
Municipal Corporation and duty bound as such to perform
his duties in the form of providing answers to the queries
posed by the members of the Standing Committee of the
Delhi Municipal Corporation, his actions are protected by
the provisions of section 477 & 478 of Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act and as such as the cause of action arose at
a time when he was under the employment of Delhi
Municipal Corporation, non joinder of Delhi Municipal
Corporation as one of the defendant goes to the root of the
suit and hence the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary
party i.e Delhi Municipal Corporation.
36. It is not a disputed fact that as on the date of cause of action
i.e the date on which the above stated statements were made
by the defendant in the meeting of the Standing Committee
of Delhi Municipal Corporation, he was not acting in an
individual capacity but rather acting in an official capacity
and as such his actions were protected in terms of
provisions of section 477 of Delhi Municipal Corporation
and the position being so, the Delhi Municipal Corporation
was a necessary party to be impleaded as one of the
defendant and accordingly, it is hereby held that indeed the
suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e Delhi
Municipal Corporation.
37. Issue No.2 is accordingly decided in favour of defendant.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.15/38
38. Issue No.3-Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
compensation and damages as asked for in the plaint? If
yes, the extent thereof? OPP.
39. For the purpose of deciding this issue, it is pertinent to first
of all discuss the basic ground of defamation as claimed by
the plaintiff.
40. As per the plaintiff, one of the ground is that , complaints
were made by three trachers of Primary Schoo of Pitam
pura with PS Maurya Enclave regarding alleged
misrepresentation and misconduct on the part of the
plaintiff in representing themselves as official from the
vigilance department of MCD to the said three teachers, on
account of which as per the plaintiff the tort of malicious
prosecution stand committed against them.
41. The 2nd ground is that on account of the submissions made
by the defendant before the members of the Committee of
Delhi Municiapl Corporation and subsequent action on the
part of the MCD to suspend the plaintiffs from their job as
teacher, and the factum of publication of the same, their
reputation has been harmed.
42. In order to appreciate the grounds in this respect, it is
essential to discuss the law of defamation and malicious
prosecution under tort.
43. The law of malicious prosecution under tort as evolved
over a period of time can be understood as illustrated in the
following Paras :-
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.16/38
(a) In tort law, the concept of malicious prosecution holds
significant weight, embodying the principle of seeking
redress for wrongful or improper motives behind
judicial proceedings. The term “malicious prosecution”
encompasses a judicial action initiated without probable
cause and driven by wrongful intent.
TORT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
(b) The Apex Court, in the case of West Bengal State
Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray, elucidated two
pivotal elements essential for constituting a malicious
prosecution i.e :-
i. The absence of probable cause for instituting the
prosecution or suit;
ii. and the favorable termination of such prosecutionor
suit for Malicious Prosecution under Tort for the
defendant.
(c) Moreover, the court delineated the distinction between
an action for malicious prosecution and abuse of
process:- :-
i. While malicious prosecution of tort entails the
malicious issuance of legal process
ii. Abuse of process involves the improper use of legal
process for purposes divergent from its intended
effect under the lawiii. The court clarified that vexatious civil proceedings
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.17/38
lacking in substance are subject to the same rules as
malicious prosecutions in criminal proceedings.
(d) In a pertinent case, an employee of the Board faced
disciplinary actions and an FIR alleging misconduct and
various offenses. Subsequently, upon delay in issuing a
charge-sheet, the employee sought intervention from
the High Court to quash the disciplinary proceedings.
Despite the issuance of a charge-sheet and an inquiry
initiated thereafter, the Board opted to discontinue the
case, ultimately revoking the employee’s suspension
orders. Subsequent to these events, the employee filed a
suit in the Court of Assistant District Judge, seeking
damages against the Board and a newspaper for the
institution of disciplinary proceedings and alleged
defamatory publications, respectively. The trial court
ruled in favor of the employee, citing the probability of
extraneous reasons behind the suspension and awarded
damages for harassment and loss of reputation.
However, upon appeal by the Board, the High Court
upheld the damages awarded for harassment, deeming
them as damages for malicious prosecution causing
mental anguish. Despite this interpretation, the Apex
Court intervened, criticizing the High Court’s
conclusion as perplexing, contradictory, and lacking
coherence. Consequently, the Apex Court overturned
the High Court’s order, dismissing the damages awarded
for malicious prosecution.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.18/38
(e) The above case underscores the nuanced application of
malicious prosecution tort principles in legal
proceedings. It highlights the necessity for clarity and
coherence in judicial interpretations to ensure equitable
dispensation of justice. As such, the Apex Court’s
intervention serves as a reminder of the meticulous
scrutiny required in adjudicating claims of malicious
prosecution, safeguarding against erroneous
conclusions and upholding the integrity of legal
processes.
INGREDIENTS OF MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION
(f) The legal doctrine of malicious prosecution is founded
upon the principle that legal proceedings initiated from
malicious intent, rather than in pursuit of justice,
constitute a tortious act. The Apex Court, in its rulings,
clarified that the burden of proof lies upon the
individual prosecuted to demonstrate the lack of honest
or reasonable action on the part of the prosecutor.
(g) Failure to establish specific averments in the plaint
regarding the malicious nature of the proceedings
results in the determination that malicious prosecution
did not occur.
(h) In an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff
bears the burden of proving several key elements:-
i. Firstly, they must demonstrate their innocence,
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.19/38
confirmed by the tribunal overseeing the
accusation.
ii. Secondly, they must establish the absence of
reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution,
indicating circumstances inconsistent with such
cause.
iii. Lastly, they must prove that the proceedings were
initiated with malicious intent, serving an indirect
and improper motive rather than the pursuit of
justice.
(i) To succeed in a suit for damages arising from
malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must establish
certain essentials:-
i. Firstly, they must show that they were
prosecuted by the defendant.
ii. Secondly, they must demonstrate that the
prosecution lacked reasonable and probable
cause.
iii. Additionally, they must prove that the
defendant acted with malice, not merely
intending to uphold the law.
iv. Furthermore, it must be shown that the
proceedings terminated in favor of the
plaintiff and that they suffered damage as a
result of the prosecution.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.20/38
PROSECUTION BY THE DEFENDANT
(i) The requirement that prosecution must be instituted by
the defendant is a fundamental element in claims of
malicious prosecution. A prosecutor is considered as
someone actively involved in initiating legal
proceedings against another individual. Despite
criminal proceedings being conducted in the name of
the State, for the purpose of establishing malicious
prosecution, the prosecutor is typically the individual
who instigates the proceedings.
(j) This principle was highlighted in Balbhaddar v. Badri
Sah, where the Privy Council emphasized that actions
for malicious prosecution can be pursued against private
individuals who provide information to authorities
leading to prosecution.
(k) Merely giving information to the police, even if false,
does not automatically give rise to a cause of action for
malicious prosecution unless the individual can be
proven to be the real prosecutor, actively participating
in and primarily responsible for the prosecution.
(l) In Dattatraya Pandurang Datar v. Hari Keshav, the court
ruled that merely lodging an FIR with the police does
not constitute prosecution if the defendant did not
actively participate in the subsequent proceedings.
(m) Similarly, in Pannalal v. Shrikrishna, the court held that
liability for malicious prosecution cannot be attributed
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.21/38
to individuals who only provided information to the
police without actively participating in the prosecution.
(n) The conduct of the complainant before and after making
the complaint is crucial in determining whether they are
the real prosecutor. As elucidated by the Privy Council
in Gaya Prasad v. Bhagat Singh, if the complainant
knowingly provides false information or tries to mislead
the police by procuring false evidence, they can be
considered the prosecutor and held liable for malicious
prosecution.
(o) In T.S. Bhatta v. A.K. Bhatta, the defendant’s active
involvement in various stages of legal proceedings,
including moving for revision and appearing as a
witness, established their role as the real prosecutor,
rendering them liable for malicious prosecution tort.
COMMENCEMENT OF PROSECUTION
(p) The commencement of prosecution, crucial in
determining the viability of a claim for malicious
prosecution, occurs when a person is summoned to
answer a complaint before a judicial authority. In legal
precedent, it’s established that the mere lodging of an
FIR or bringing a matter before executive authority does
not signify the commencement of prosecution.
(q) In the case of Khagendra Nath v. Jabob Chandra, the
plaintiff was accused of wrongfully taking a bullock cart
belonging to the defendant, leading to the lodging of an
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.22/38
FIR. However, no formal prosecution ensued as the
plaintiff was neither arrested nor prosecuted. The court
ruled that merely bringing the matter before executive
authority did not constitute prosecution, rendering the
action for malicious prosecution unsustainable.
(r) Therefore, for a claim of malicious prosecution to be
viable, it is imperative that the prosecution has
commenced through the issuance of a summons by a
judicial authority.
PROCEEDING BEFORE QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY
(s) The distinction between proceedings before quasi-
judicial authorities and formal judicial prosecution
plays a crucial role in determining claims for malicious
prosecution, as illustrated in several legal precedents.
(t) In the case of Kapoor Chand v. Jagdish Chand, the
Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that proceedings
before the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of
Medicines, Punjab amounted to prosecution. Here, the
appellant falsely accused the respondent, a practicing
Hakim, of obtaining qualifications through fraudulent
means. However, upon investigation, the Board
confirmed the respondent’s qualifications and
authorized him to practice. In a subsequent action for
malicious prosecution, the court held that the
respondent was entitled to claim compensation,
recognizing the proceedings before the Board as
tantamount to prosecution.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.23/38
(u) Conversely, in D.N. Bandopadhyaya v. Union of India,
the Rajasthan High Court determined that departmental
inquiries by disciplinary authorities did not constitute
prosecution. In this case, the plaintiff, a Way Inspector
with the railway, faced disciplinary action following an
inquiry into a train derailment. Despite the disciplinary
authority’s decision being overturned in a writ petition,
the court held that the disciplinary proceedings did not
amount to prosecution. It reasoned that disciplinary
authorities functioned in a quasi-judicial capacity rather
than as formal judicial bodies.
(v) The decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
Kapoor Chand v. Jagdish Chand is perceived as more
logical, acknowledging the impact of such proceedings
on individuals and allowing them recourse through
claims for compensation.
ABSENCE OF REASONABLE AND PROBABLE
CAUSE
(w) In claims of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must
establish that the defendant prosecuted them without
reasonable and probable cause, a critical element of the
case. Reasonable and probable cause is defined as an
honest belief in the guilt of the accused, founded upon
reasonable grounds and circumstances that would lead
an ordinarily prudent person to conclude the accused
was likely guilty of the imputed crime.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.24/38
(x) In Shiv Shankar Patel v. Smt. Phulki Bai, a prosecution
ended in acquittal after eight years, and it was found to
have been initiated with wrongful intentions rather than
a genuine pursuit of justice, leading to compensation
for the suffering endured by the respondents.
(y) Similarly, in State of Tripura v. Haradhan Chowdhury,
the plaintiff, a reputed timber merchant, was arrested
based on false allegations by the appellant, leading to
his discharge due to lack of credible evidence. The
court awarded damages for malicious prosecution,
emphasizing the mala fide nature of the prosecution.
(z) Moreover, in cases like Ashwani Kumar v. Satpal,
where the defendant lodged a prosecution against the
plaintiff knowing the accusation was false, the court
held the defendant liable for malicious prosecution. It
was observed that launching criminal proceedings
solely for settling personal scores, without reasonable
cause, is unjustifiable and warrants compensation for
damages incurred by the plaintiff.
(aa) However, establishing lack of reasonable and
probable cause is not straightforward. Advice from
competent legal counsel can serve as a defense,
presuming the defendant had reasonable grounds to
initiate the prosecution. Yet, if the defendant misleads
their lawyer with false information, as seen in Smt.
Manijeh v. Sohrab Peshottam Kotwal, this defense
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.25/38
may not hold, and liability for malicious prosecution
may be established.
(bb) Importantly, the absence of reasonable and probable
cause cannot be inferred solely from dismissal or
acquittal of the accused. The burden of proof lies on the
plaintiff to demonstrate this absence, except in
exceptional cases where the circumstances indicate the
prosecutor must have known the innocence of the
accused. In such situations, the burden shifts to the
defendant to prove the presence of reasonable and
probable cause, thereby potentially avoiding liability for
malicious prosecution.
MALICE
(cc) Malice, in the context of malicious prosecution
claims, refers to an improper and wrongful motive
behind initiating legal proceedings against the plaintiff.
It denotes an intention to misuse the legal process for
purposes other than those intended by law, such as
harassing the plaintiff or gaining a collateral advantage.
Contrary to common belief, malice does not necessarily
entail personal spite or ill will but encompasses any
intent to violate the law to the detriment of another.
(dd) Proving malice requires demonstrating that the
prosecution was initiated with an oblique motive, rather
than a genuine pursuit of justice. This means showing
that the defendant’s primary aim was not to uphold the
law but to harm the plaintiff unjustly. Malice can
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.26/38
manifest in various forms, including haste, recklessness,
failure to conduct proper inquiries, a spirit of retaliation,
or a history of enmity between the parties involved.
(ee) Importantly, malice must be established separately
from the absence of reasonable and probable cause.
While the lack of reasonable cause may indicate
negligence or carelessness on the part of the defendant,
it does not automatically imply malice. Similarly, the
presence of malice does not necessarily mean there was
no reasonable cause for prosecution. Malicious motives
can coexist with a genuine belief in the guilt of the
accused, highlighting the need to assess each aspect
independently.
(ff) Furthermore, the mere fact of the plaintiff’s acquittal
does not serve as evidence of malice. While an acquittal
may suggest that the prosecution lacked merit, it does
not conclusively prove malicious intent on the part of
the defendant. However, if the defendant continues to
pursue the prosecution despite obtaining positive
knowledge of the accused’s innocence, this can be
considered malicious behavior.
(gg) In cases where the accusation against the plaintiff
results in an acquittal, there is a presumption of
innocence, and it is incumbent upon the defendant to
prove the presence of reasonable and probable cause for
the accusation. This shifts the burden of proof onto the
defendant, requiring them to demonstrate the
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.27/38
legitimacy of their actions.
TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN
FAVOUR OF PLAINTIFF
(hh) In claims of malicious prosecution, termination of
proceedings in favor of the plaintiff is a crucial element
that must be established. This termination does not
necessarily mean a judicial determination of innocence
but rather the absence of a judicial determination of
guilt.Itoccurswhentheproceedingsdonotendagainst
the plaintiff, such as when there is an acquittal on a
technicality, a quashed conviction, a discontinued
prosecution, or a discharge of the accused.
(ii) However, if a plaintiff has been convicted by a court,
they cannot bring an action for malicious prosecution,
even if they can prove their innocence and that the
accusation was malicious and unfounded. The legal
principle is that termination in favor of the plaintiff
means the proceedings have ended without a
determination of guilt, regardless of whether innocence
has been proven.
(jj) In cases where the prosecution results in conviction at a
lower level but is reversed on appeal, there may be a
question regarding the viability of an action for
malicious prosecution. Initially, the position in
Reynolds v. Kennedy held that the original conviction
acted as a bar to such an action, rendering subsequent
reversal on appeal ineffective. However, this position
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.28/38
has been challenged by subsequent decisions,
suggesting that if proceedings terminate in favor of
the plaintiff on appeal, a cause of action for
malicious prosecution may exist.
(kk) Mere acquittal does not prove malice or the absence
of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to
demonstrate malice and lack of reasonable and probable
cause.
(ll) In cases like Sugan Kanwar v. Rakesh, where the
criminal court acquitted the plaintiff due to lack of
evidence, the court emphasized that the mere acquittal
does not necessarily imply baselessness or malice in the
prosecution.
(mm) Similarly, in Ram Lal v. Mahender Singh, the
Rajasthan High Court dismissed a suit for malicious
prosecution, stating that the burden lies with the
plaintiff to prove malice and intent to harass or
defame, even if the criminal trial resulted in acquittal.
(nn) Moreover, when government agencies act in good
faith in the performance of their official duties, they
cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution.
(oo) In State of Tripura v. Ranjit Kumar Debnath, the
court held that competent officers, including those from
the Border Security Force (B.S.F.), participating in
official duties on specific information, were not liable
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.29/38
for compensation in a suit for malicious prosecution,
as there was no malice in their actions.
DAMAGE
(pp) In claims of malicious prosecution, it’s imperative
for the plaintiff to establish that they have suffered
damages as a consequence of the prosecution. While
the termination of proceedings in favor of the plaintiff is
crucial, damage is the essence of the action. Damage
may manifest in various forms, including harm to
reputation, person, and property.
(qq) Damage to reputation is inherent in false criminal
charges. Being accused of a criminal offense tarnishes
one’s reputation and can have long-lasting effects on
their standing in society.
(rr) Additionally, damage to the person occurs when an
individual is arrested, detained, or subjected to mental
stress due to the prosecution. This can result in
significant emotional distress and harm to the
individual’s well-being.
(ss) Moreover, there can be financial damage associated
with malicious prosecution. Defending oneself against
criminal charges often entails substantial legal
expenses, which can impose a financial burden on the
plaintiff. Expenses incurred for legal
representation, court fees, and other related costs
contribute to the overall damage suffered by the
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.30/38
plaintiff.
(tt) However, the failure of the prosecution does not
automatically imply damage to reputation. In cases
where the plaintiff’s reputation remains intact despite
the failed prosecution, the court may not award
damages for reputation-related harm. For
example, in Wiffen v. Bailey Romfort U.D.C., the
plaintiff’s failure to comply with a notice did not
damage his reputation despite being prosecuted,
leading to the dismissal of the claim for malicious
prosecution.
(uu) Nevertheless, in instances where the prosecution
results in humiliation, physical harm, or significant
financial loss, the plaintiff may be entitled to
compensation. In Sova Rani Dutta v. Debabrata Dutta,
the defendant’s false FIR led to the plaintiff’s
handcuffing by the police, resulting in humiliation and
emotional distress. In such cases, where the plaintiff
can demonstrate tangible harm suffered as a direct
consequenceofthemaliciousprosecution,theymaybe
awarded damages.
To Sum Up
(vv) To successfully establish a claim for malicious
prosecution, the plaintiff must demonstrate the absence
of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution,
the presence of malice on the part of the defendant,
termination of proceedings in favor of the plaintiff, and
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.31/38
the existence of damages resulting from the prosecution.
(ww) Malice, refers to the improper motive behind the
prosecution, indicating an intent to use the legal process
for wrongful purposes rather than seeking justice.
(xx) Furthermore, termination of proceedings in favor of
the plaintiff is essential, whether through acquittal,
discharge, or discontinuance of the prosecution.
(yy) Finally, damages resulting from the malicious
prosecution encompass harm to reputation, person, and
property. These damages serve as the foundation for
assessing the compensation owed to the plaintiff for the
injuries endured due to the wrongful prosecution.
Defamation
(zz) A man’s reputation is his property. The objective
of law of defamation is to protect one’s reputation,
honor, integrity, character and dignity in the society.
A person aggrieved may file a criminal prosecution
as well as a civil suit for damages for defamation.
(aaa) Defamation is intentional false communication, act
of publication of defamatory content, either written
or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation, or
induces disparaging, hostile or disagreeable opinions
or feelings against a person.
(bbb) The right to take legal action for defamation is
restricted to a period of one year
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.32/38
(ccc) Defamatory statements can be made as libel or as
slander:-
i. Libel: the publication of a false and defamatory
statement to injure the reputation of another
person without lawful justification or excuse. The
statement must be in a printed form, e.g. writing,
printing, pictures, statue, etc.ii. Slander: A false and defamatory statement by
spoken words and/or gestures tending to injure
the reputation of others.
Remedies available under Indian Law:
(bd) India offers the defamed a remedy both in civil law
for damages and in criminal law for punishment. In
Civil Law, defamation falls under the Law of Torts,
which imposes punishment in the form of damages
awarded to the claimant (person filing the claim).
Under Criminal Law, Defamation is bailable, non-
cognizable and compoundable offence. Limitation
to file criminal defamation complaint is 3 years from
the period of knowledge of offence. The civil
remedy is to file a suit for damages and section 499
and 500 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals in criminal
defamation.
(be) In case of Criminal Defamation, a private Complaint
is filed before the Judicial Magistrate.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.33/38
(bf) In Civil Defamation, a person who is defamed can
move the competent Court having pecuniary
jurisdiction and seek damages in the form of
monetary compensation. Under Section 19 of Civil
Procedure Code (CPC) civil suit can be filed either
where the Defendant resides or where the
Defamatory statement was made/published.
(bg) Court Fees for Civil Defamation suit is to be paid in
accordance to the value of the monetary
compensation claimed. Court Fees varies State to
State.
Essential Ingredients of Defamation:
(iii) Regardless of whether a defamation action is framed
in libel or slander, the plaintiff must always prove
the following:-
i. That the words, pictures, gestures, etc. are
defamatory.
ii. That the plaintiff must show that they refer to
him.
iii. That they were maliciously published.
iv. Publication means making the defamatory
matter known to some other 3rd party and
unless the content is published- made
available to someone other than the claimant,CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.34/38
there can no defamation.
v. Defamation on social networking websites:
vi. Social media and networking websites have
occupied an insurmountable space in our
lives. In the current age of lightning fast
communication channels and the fast growing
Social Networking Websites, majority of the
people suffer from an urge to put up their
thoughts and opinions about different matters
and incidents on these Social Networking
Websites. With the proliferation of social
networking websites and their widespread
use, especially amongst the youth, one
observes certain legal loopholes in their
operation and use. One such glaring
drawback is the opportunity they provide for
“cyber-defamation” or “virtual defamation” to
mushroom.
vii Under the operative Indian law, the person
who made such statement as well as its
distributor and publishers can be sued. Apart
from the author of such statement,
intermediaries such as the concerned Social
Networking Websites, the website holder, the
internet service providers,as well as the other
users of such Social Networking Websites on
whose profiles defamatory statements haveCS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.35/38
been written by the author, can be sued in their
capacity as a publisher of defamatory
statements and can be held liable for such
statements. After the Information Technology
Amendment Act 2008 became effective,
intermediaries such as Social Networking
Websites became immune from any
defamation liability provided such
intermediaries acted bonafide or c ame
within the purview of the exemptions
envisaged under the amendment.
Some common Defenses/Exceptions to
Defamation:
(bh) There are following exceptions for Defamation
under Sec. 499 IPC:-
(i) Imputation of truth which public good
requires be making or publishing.
(ii) Public conduct of public servant.
(iii) Conduct of any person touching any public
question.
(iv) Publication of reports of proceedings of
courts.
(v) Merit s of the case decided in court or conduct
of witnesses and others concerned.
(vi) Merits of Public performance. CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.36/38
vii. Censure passed in good faith by person having
lawful authority over another.
viii. Accusation preferred in good faith to
authorized person.
ix. Imputation made in good faith by person for
protection of his or other’s interests.
44. The submissions of the plaintiffs seen in the light of the
above law of tort concerning defamation and malicious
prosecution makes it clear that the same do not at all fulfill
any of the criteria whereby it can be claimed that the
defendant action were malicious or in any manner
defamatory qua the plaintiff.
45. Whatever has been done by the defendant, that was done in
the performance in official duty being responsible to
answer the queries of the members of standing Committee
of DMC.
46. Hence, the court has come to the conclusion that plaintiff
are not entitled for the relief of compensation and damages
as asked for.
47. Accordingly, issue no.3 is decided against the plaintiffs
48. Issue No. 4-Relief
49. In view of outcome of issue no.2 & 3, suit of the plaintiffs
stand dismissed.
50. No order as to cost.
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.37/38
Ordered accordingly.
Let decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court
on 05.04.2025 (Vinay Singhal)
District Judge-09 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
05.04.2025
CS DJ-10302-16 Sandeep Dabas & Ors Vs Jasram Kaim Pg.38/38
[ad_1]
Source link