1 O.S.No.09/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALWAKURTHY
Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2023
Present:-Sri A.Kumara Swamy,
Senior Civil Judge,
Kalwakurthy.
O.S.No. 09/2022
Between:
Rathlavath Pandu S/o Laxman, Age 46 years, Occ: Govt, Teacher, R/0 H.No.21-206/1, Maruthi Nagar, Achampet village and mandal, Mahbubnagar District.
...Plaintiff
And
1.Jarpula Srinu S/o Bagya, age 32 years, occ:Agriculture, R/o
Dubba Thanda, H/o Chedurpally village, Veldanda Mandal,
Nagarkurnool District.
2. Smt. Vathyavath Rajitha , S/o Ravi, age 27 yrs, occ:Household, C./O M. Jaipal, Teacher, Telkanagar, Kalwakurthy. Nagarkarnool District.
3. Mandugla Anjaiah , S/o Papaiah, age 42 yrs, occ: Agriculture, R/o Chedurpally village, Veldanda Mandal, Nagarkurnool Dist.
...Defendants
This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 24.04.2023 in the presence of Sri A.Venkateshwar Rao,Counsel for plaintiff; and Sri. Venkat Goud, counsel for defendants No.1 to 3 and upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:
-:: J U D G M E N T ::-
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for damages of Rs. 8.00,000- with future interest @ 18% p.a. for malicious prosecution.
2 O.S.No.09/2022
2.Plaint averments, in brief are as follows: The real sister of plaintiff by name Dhana Laxmi was studying Degree 2nd year during the year 2006. The said sister of the plaintiff has committed suicide on 26.7.2006 by consuming pesticide poison in the house of parents of the plaintiff at Dubba Thanda. The father of the plaintiff has lodged complaint against the defendant No.1 and his parents alleging that they are responsible for her death and she committed suicide due to the harassment of defendant no.1 as he forced her to marry him. The police Veldanda has registered case in Crime No.62 of 2006 against them for the offence under section 306 I.P.C and subsequently arrested the defendant No.1 and his parents. The police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against them and same was registered as S.C.No.258 of 2011 on the file of
Assistant Sessions judge, Mahaboobnagar. The defendant No.1 has filed a false private complaint against the plaintiff, his wife and brothers and their parents on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Kalwakurthy in july, 2007 alleging that he is in love with
the deceased sister of plaintiff and plaintiff and his parents and other family members have beat the deceased and not permitted her to marry the defendant No.1 and hence she has committed suicide. The plaintiff was staying at Achampet during the said period along with his family. Defendant No.1 fully aware of the said fact but he has filed the said false complaint and involved the 3 O.S.No.09/2022 plaintiff and his family in the said case with malafide intention and without any just and reasonable grounds. The judicial magistrate of
First class, Kalwakurthy has registered the said case as C.F.R
no.3438 of 2007 and after taking the cognizance committed to the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar and the same was registered as S.C.No.371 of 2011. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not having good terms with the family of plaintiff since beginning and hence they have given false evidence in the said case supporting the illegal cause of the defendant No.1 and to implicate the plaintiff and his family members in the said case. The plaintiff is a Government servant and he was falsely implicated in the said case by the defendant No.1 with the support and false evidence of defendant No.2 and 3. The plaintiff was forced to face the prosecution in the said case and visited Mahabubnagar more than 50 to 60 times for attending in the said case and to pursue the said case and gone through huge mental tension and faced the trial in the said case. The Assistant Session judge, Mahabunnagr after full trial has acquitted on 13.09.2013 the Accused by holding that the defendant No.1 herein utterly failed to prove the case against the plaintiff. The court however acquitted the Defendant No.1 and his parents in the case filed against them by the father of the plaintiff.
The defendant No.1 has no reasonable grounds to file complaint against the plaintiff which he filed more than one year after the 4 O.S.No.09/2022 death of sister of the plaintiff. The prosecution initiated by the defendant No.1 is malicious in nature and without any valid grounds.
The plaintiff sustained huge financial troubles due to said false case and the plaintiff pursued various legal remedies and even approached the Hon’ble high Court to get the case quashed. The plaintiff has incurred huge expenditure of about more than
Rs.1.00.000/- towards expenditure in the said process. The plaintiff has faced lot of mental pain and trauma by facing said criminal prosecution and spent lot of money in defending said case and wasted his time in the process of prosecuting the said case. The reputation of the plaintiff was also affected due to the said false prosecution. In view of acquittal of plaintiff in the said criminal case, it is evident that the plaintiff has not committed any wrong or criminal act as alleged by the defendants and not committed any offence. The plaintiff is entitled to claim damages against the defendants for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff is claiming an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards damages for malicious prosecution. The defendants are bound to pay said amount to the plaintiff. The Defendants are bound to pay said amount to the plaintiff with future interest @ 18% p.a. The plaintiff orally demanded the defendants to pay said damages to him in the last week of August, 2014, but the defendants have refused to pay any 5 O.S.No.09/2022 damages. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to sue and the defendants are liable to be sued. Hence, the suit.
3.The defendants No.1 to 3 filed written statement as under:-
The defendant No.1 and deceased Dhanalakshmi were students of Y.R.M Degree College since the year 2005, and both of them fell in love with each other, when the love affairs of the defendant No.1 and deceased Dhanalakshmi was revealed to the plaintiff and her parents and other family members all of them opposed for the marriage of the defendant No.1 and deceased
Dhanalakshmi and on 19.2.2206 she forcibly took away her from
Dubba Thanda to Achampet and confined her in the house of plaintiff by tying her toes however deceased Dhanalakshimi escaped from the clutches of the plaintiff and her brothers and her sister-in- laws reached to Dubba thanda on 26.6.2006 and commited suicide by consuming pesticide. Deceased Dhanalakshmi narrated the entire episode to the defendant No.2 while traveling in auto from
Veldanda to Dubba thanda about the harassment made to her and same was heard by the auto driver Jarpula Eshwar. Deceased
Dhanalakshmi committed suicide due to the harassment made to her by her family members including plaintiff and father of the plaintiff with active support of family members lodged false report
before the police Veldanda, and police instead of tracing real culprits
intentionally turned the case and falsely roped the defendant no.1 6 O.S.No.09/2022 and his parents in the alleged offence under sec.306 IPC on the false report and the same was acquitted by the Hon’ble court on 13.3.2013 even prior to filing the SC No.258 of 2011, on 15.3.2006 the father of the plaintiff and plaintiff himself attacked the father and mother of the defendant no.1 by protesting the marriage proposals of the deceased Dhanalakshmi with the defendant No.1 in the said case parents of the plaintiff admitted guilty in the said case under section 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC vide C.C.No.421 of 2007 on the file J.F.C.M,.Kalwakurthy and paid fine each 2000/-. The defendant No.1 under went three months remand along with his parents in SC.No.258 of 2011 and after enlargement on bail , he enquired about the legal remedies available to him, and lodged report before SP of police Mahabubnagar on 26.6.2007 and requested proper action against the plaintiff and family members and requested to delete his and his parents names but police did not enquire and filed false charge sheet. All the allegations are false and frivolous the defendant No.1 never filed the SCNo.371 of 2011, in fact the plaintiff was played prominent role with malicious intention to implicate the defendant No.1 and his parents and further denied the plaintiff was subjected financial troubles, but he did not sate how much he had spent on what occasions he has spent, but merely stating one lakh rupees were incurred for high
Court proceedings, is not enough, in fact the defendant No.1 7 O.S.No.09/2022 incurred huge financial loss in criminal case lodged by the plaintiff and his family members. The version of the plaintiff the holding and reasons mentioned by the Hon’be court in SC.No.271, in which the lapses of the complaint version and basing on the evidence of PW1 to PW7 was unable to bring home guilty of the A1 to A6 as filing the complaint utterly failed to prove and the comment and reason hold by the Hon’ble court cannot lead to conclusion that there wan not reasonable and probable cause for filing the complaint by the defendant No.1. The accusation leveled by the defendant No.1 against the plaintiff and his family members resulted in acquittal in fact the defendant no.1 version vide SC.No.371 of 2011 is true and correct. In criminal proceedings the person who set criminal law in to motion is not bound before instituting the proceedings to see that he has such evidence as it will be legally sufficient to secure a conviction as such it cannot be said the the defendant No.1 who set criminal law into motion neither with malafide intention nor for the purpose of vindicating the justice or perversion of mechanism of justice for improper purpose or without any reasonable and probable cause for such proceedings, as such the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Judgment of acquittal delivered by the Hon’ble court against A1 to A6 in SC.No.371 of 2011, it could not be presume that there was no cause for initiating criminal proceedings, the person who launches acquittal or conviction, and the same is 8 O.S.No.09/2022 could not be known to him in advance, as such the present suit is not maintainable against the Defendant No.1 to 3. Hence, prays to dismiss with costs.
4.On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are framed
1.Whether the plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted by the defendants for the charge under section 306 of IPC in
SC.No.371 of 2011 on the file of Assistant Sessions judge,
Mahabubnagar?
2.Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of investigating
Officer ?
3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages for a sum of
Rs.8 lakhs?
4.If so what relief?
5.To substantiate their respective claims, on behalf of plaintiffs side Pws.1 and PW2 are examined and got marked Ex.A1. On the behalf of defendants side Dws1 is examined and marked Ex.B1 to
B9.
6.Heard on both sides.
7. Issues No.1
Whether the plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted by
the defendants for the charge under section 306 of IPC in
SC.No.371 of 2011 on the file of Assistant Sessions judge,
Mahabubnagar?
9 O.S.No.09/2022
It is the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff is that the father of plaintiff has lodged complaint against the defendant No.1 and his parents alleging that they are responsible for his daughters death and she committed suicide due to the harassment of defendant No.1 as he forced her to marry him. The police veldanda has registered a Crime No.62 of 2006 against them under section 306 IPC and after that police arrested them and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against them and sessions case vide
S.C.No258 of 2011 registered. The defendant No.1 has filed a false private complaint against plaintiff, his wife and brothers and their parents alleging that he is in love with the deceased sister of the plaintiff and her parents and other family members have beat the deceased and not permitted her to marry the defendant No.1 hence she committed suicide, the learned JFCM, kalwakurthy has taken cognizance and registered as SC.No.371 of 2011. The defendants
No.2 and 3 are not having good terms with the family of the plaintiff.
The assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar after full trial acquitted by holding that the defendant No.1 utterly failed to prove the case against the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 has no reasonable grounds to file file said case and having knowledge that the said case is false filed with a malafide and malice intention. He incurred morethan 1lakhs rupees and faced lot of mental pain and trauma and his reputation is also effected. The defendant No.2 and 3 are also aware 10 O.S.No.09/2022 that the said case is false, but they have falsely supported the defendant No.1 and gave false evidence In order to prove the case the plaintiff is examined as PW1 by reiterating the plaint armaments and got examined PW2 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the CC of judgment Dt.13.09.2013 in SC.No.371 of 2011 on the file of
Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabunnagar.
8.On the other hand it is the pleading and evidence of the defendants are that deceased Dhanalaxmi is the sister of plaintiff was studying Degree 2nd year during the year 2006. the defendant
No.1 and deceased Dhanalakshmi were the students of Y.R.M Degree
College since the year ,2005. both of them fell in love with each other, when the love affair of the them was revealed to the plaintiff and her parents and other family members but all of them opposed for the marriage of defendant No.1 with deceased Dhanalaxmi.
Inspite of strong protest by her family members Dahanalaxmi strongly inclined to marry the Defendant No.1 for which the parents of defendant No.1, were agreed, knowing the intentions of
Dahanalaxmi the plaintiff and his brothers and his wife and parents on dated 19.2.2006 beat the deceased and forcibly took away her from Dubba Thanda to Achampet and confined her in the house of plaintiff and tortured her by tying her toes and forced her to forget the defendant No.1. However deceased Dhanalakshmi escaped 11 O.S.No.09/2022 from the clutches of the plaintiff reached to Dubba thanda on 26.7.2006 and committed suicide by consuming pesticide. The deceased Dhanalaksmi narrated to the defendant No.2 while traveling in auto from Veldanda to Dubba Thanda the harassment perpetrated by her family members towards her and said conversation was heard by the auto driver Jarpula Eshwar and deceased reached to Dubba thanda at about 3.00 PM and on 26.7.2006 consumed poison and committed suicide. The defendant
No.1 under went three months remand in SC.No.258 of 2011 and after enlarged bail, he lodged report before the SP. Mahaboob nagar on 20.6.2007 but police did not enquired the case and filed false charge sheet against the defendant No.1 and his parents. After that he filed private complaint before the JFCM, Kalwakurthy and took congnizance and registered as PRC No.59 of 2007 and committed case to Mahabobnagar and after that the same was registered as
SC.No.371 of 2011. The Hon’ble Court in SC.No.371 of 2011,
acquitted the A1 to A6 because of lapses of the complainant version and basing on the evidence of PW1 to PW7 the court was unable to bring home the guilty of the A1 to A6 but the Hon”ble court cannot lead to conclusion that there was not reasonable and probable cause for filing the said case. In order to prove the case of the defendants, defendant No.1is examined as Dw.1, and got marked the Ex.B1 to B9, Ex.B1 is CC of judgment in SC.No.258 of 2011 12 O.S.No.09/2022 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar dt.13.09.2013.
Ex.B2 is CC of Inquest panchanama in SC.No.258 of 2011 dated 21.12.2022. Ex.B3 is CC of scene of offence panchanama dated 23.1.2023.Ex.B4 is CC of judgment in SC.No. 371 of 2011
Dt.13.09.2013. Ex.B5 is CC of judgment in CC. No.457 of 2001
Dt.3.12.2010. Ex.B6 is CC of judgment in CC No.421 of 2007 , dt 5.2.2012. Ex. B7 is distance certificate issued by Asst. Executive
Engineer. Ex. B8 is Bonafide certificate of deceased Dhanalakshimi.
Ex.B9 is original Bonafide Certificate of defendant No.1.
9.The counsel for plaintiff submitted arguments that defendant
No.1 filed private complaint without any just and reasonable grounds and with an intention to harass the plaintiff and other family member to escape his role in the death of deceased sister, defendants no.2 and 3 are also aware that the said case is false but gave a false evidence in said private complaint, the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar after full trial acquitted the plaintiff
through judgment dt 13.09.2013 in SC.No.371 of 2011 by holding that defendant No.1 utterly failed to prove the case, the defendant
No.1 filed complaint having knowledge that the said case is false and same is filed with malafide and malicious intention due to which plaintiff faced lot of mental pain and spent money in defending the said case.
13 O.S.No.09/2022
10.On the other hand the counsel for the defendants submitted arguments that defendant No.1 and Dhanalaxmi who is the sister of plaintiff fell in love with each other when the same is revealed to plaintiff and her parents, they opposed but deceased Dhanalaxmi strongly inclined to marry the defendant No.1 opposing their marriage, confined the deceased Dhanalaxmi in the house of plaintiff and tortured her by tying her toes, however Dhanalaxmi has escaped from the clutches of plaintiff and narrated the incident while travelling in auto from Veldanda to Dubba Thanda the harassment made to her to defendant No.2 and the same is heard by auto driver Jarpula Ishwar and she reached to the Dubba Thanda committed suicide by consuming poison as such he filed private complaint and the plaintiff has no reasonable ground to lodge report against him and his parents falsely implicated him and family members, the police foisted a false case and implicated him and his family members under sec.306 R/w 34 IPC in SC.No.258 of 2011 the said case is ended with acquittal and criminal complaint lodged by him is genuine and true and same is not a malicious prosecution and the defendant No.2 and 3 are who are genuine witnesses as such the plaintiff cannot seek compensation and damages and in support of his contention he relied on judgment Amar Singh v Smt.
Bhagawati reported AIR 2001 Raj 14.
14 O.S.No.09/2022
11.As seen the rival contentions on both parties, in order to prove the issue No.1, the plaintiff has to prove the he was prosecuted by the defendants and proceedings complained was terminated in favour of plaintiff and defendants filed case without any with reasonable and probable cause with a malicious intention and plaintiff suffered damage to his reputation.
12.As seen that it is a admitted fact for the defendant No.1 filed a pvt. Complaint U/s 306 r/w 109 and 120-B IPC before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Kalwakurthy, Judicial First Class Magistrate
took the cognizance for the offence punishable U/s 306 r/w 109 IPC against the plaintiff and his wife and brother and parents and registered as PRC.No.59/2007 committed the same Asst. Sessions
Judge, Mahabubnagar, the same was registered as SC.No.371/2011
the same is ended with acquittal against the plaintiff. In order to succeed for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has to establish that the defendant No.1 had acted without any reasonable and probable cause and acted maliciously. So the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the said SC.No.371/2011 filed without any reasonable and probable cause with malicious intention. As seen the evidence of Pw.1 & 2 that the defendant No.1 filed a pvt. Complaint without any just and reasonable doubts subsequently the said Pvt.
complaint was registered as a PRC.No.59/2007 committed the same 15 O.S.No.09/2022
Asst. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar the same was registered as
Sc.No.371/2011 the same is ended with acquittal, the defendant
No.1 having knowledge the said case is false filed the same with the malafide malicious intention, the defendant No.2 and 3 also aware the said case is false. But, they have falsely supported the defendant No.1 gave a false evidence. Whereas as seen the evidence of Dw.1 which shows that the defendant No.1 and deceased Dhanalaxmi sister of plaintiff are the students of YRM
Degree College, Kalwakurthy since 2005 both of them fail in love with each other when they love affairs review to the plaintiff and her parents and other family members they opposed their marriage but, deceased Dhanalaxmi strongly inclined to marry the defendant
No.1, for which then on 19.02.2006 the elder brother of deceased
Dhanalaxmi i.e., Chandu and wife of the plaintiff i.e., Jayasree beat the deceased Dhanalaxmi forcibly took away her to Achampet confined her in house of plaintiff and she were tourched by her brothers and in sister-in-law and her parents by tying her toes but the deceased Dhanalaxmi escaped from the clutches of plaintiff and her brothers reached to Dubba thanda on 26.07.2006 committed a suicide for consuming pesticide. The deceased Dhanalaxmi narrated the entire episode to the defendant No.2 Smt.V.Rajitha while traveling in auto from Veldanda to Dubba thanda about harassment made by her family members towards her and said 16 O.S.No.09/2022 conversation was heard by the auto driver Jarpula Eshwar. But the parents of deceased Dhanalaxmi lodged a false report against
Defendant no.1 and his family members case vide crime
No.62/2006 registered against defendant No.1 and his parents U/s 306 IPC. In which he was remanded to three months judicial custody after released he filed a said Pvt. Complaint and further
Pw.1 in cross it is admitted that “D1 filed a pvt. Complaint U/s 306 r/w 109 and 120-B of IPC before the JFCM, Kalwakurhty. The JFCM
Kalwakurthy took the cognizance for the offence punishable U/s 306 r/w 109 of Ipc against plaintiff and wife and brother and parents registered a PRC.No.59/2007 and they received a summons the said case. The defendants No.2 and 3 were cited as witnesses in
PRC.No.59/2007 One Eshwer and Gopal were also cited as a witnesses along with the D2 and D3 in said PRC. They moved a
Quash petition before the Hon’ble High Court, vide
Crol.P.No.5599/2007 against the PRC.No.59 of 2007. Basing on the complaint lodged by his father the case vide PRC.No.40 of 2007 was registered against the defendant No.1 and his parents. The D1 also moved a Quash petition against the PRC.No.40 of 2007 on the file of
JFCM, Kalwakurthy before the Hon’ble High Court. The said two
PRC’s were inquired by Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court on 18.07.2010 by disposing the said two quash petitions jointly vide
Crl.No.5599/2007 and Crl.No.781/2008 by observing that there are
17 O.S.No.09/2022 no valid sufficient grounds for quashing further proceedings in pursuance of two PRC’s with observation to face the trials in said two PRC’s”.
13.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of West Bengal State
Electricity Vs. Dileep Kumar Ray reported in AIR 2007 SC 976 held “Malicious Prosecution” is a prosecution on some charge of crime which is willful, wanton, or reckless, or against the prosecutor’s sense of duty and right, or for ends he knows or its bound to know are wrong and against the dictates of public policy.
14.As admitted by Pw.1 that two cases i.e., Sc.No.358 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff father against the defendant No.1 and his parents and Sc.No.371 of 2011 filed by the Defendant No.1 against the plaintiff moved before the Hon’ble High Court for quash but the
Hon’ble High Court refused the quash as there were no valid
sufficient grounds. Further Pw.1 also admitted in his cross examination that the Hon’ble Sessions Court in S.C.no.371 of 2011 not given any finding that D1 prosecuted maliciously and D2 and D3 were given a false evidence. It is well settled law that criminal judgment is not binding on the Civil Court. Mere acquitted the plaintiff in Sc.No.371 of 2011 it cannot be set that to the defendant
No.1 prosecuted the plaintiff maliciously. As stated supra West 18 O.S.No.09/2022
Bengol State Electricity Vs. Dileep Kumar Ray held “Malicious
Prosecution” is a prosecution on some charge of crime which is wilful, wanton, or reckless, or against the prosecutor’s sense of duty and right, or for ends he knows or its bound to know are wrong and against the dictates of public policy. Further plaintiff has to prove that the defendant No.1 acted without reasonable and probable cause for prosecuting the Sc.No.371/2011. As seen the Ex.B4 (CC of
Judgment in S.C.no.371/2011) wherein it was discussed that “complaint was lodged on 19.07.2006 after about one or one and half years and no explanation has been forth coming in his evidence. As such the abnormal delay in lodging of the complaint is also crating much doubt about his case. Further it is well settled preposition of law that unexplained abnormal delay is very fatal.
The specific defence of the accused as can be culled out from the trend of the cross-examination of Pw.1 and Pw.7 is that Pw.1 has filed the private complaint against them to escape from the case filed by A3 against him and to pressurize them to depose in his favour in that criminal case ans also that the deceased never traveled in the auto of Eshwaraiah and that Rajitha did not tell to
Pw.1 the deceased intended to commit suicide due to alleged harassment of the accused. Even in the evidence given Pw.2 she did not whisper a word that the deceased told to her that she was intending to commit suicide unable to withstand harassment or 19 O.S.No.09/2022 bearings allegedly made by the accused. That apart as pointed by the learned defence counsel Pw.1 did not challenge the investigation made by the police into the criminal case filed against him by the accused and on the other hand he chose to file the present private complaint against them. For all the above said reasons it is clear that the evidence given by Pw.1, Pw.2 and Pw.7 is not at all cogent, convincing, sufficient or satisfactory”. As seen the above judgment on the above said aspect the case ended with acquittal. Learned counsel for the defendant argued that mere ending acquittal of plaintiff in SC.No.371/2011 it cannot be said that the defendant No.1 acted maliciously without reasonable and probable cause, the existence of reasonable and probable cause is a question for the Court concerned to examine and deal with on the basis of due appreciation of evidence on record in this regard he relied the judgment in Amarsing Vs.Smt. Bhagavathi reported in AIR 2001 Raj 14, that reasonable and probable cause means a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds, that the proceedings are justified. Similarly, the terms “reasonable and probable”are synonymous, and “Probalilis causa” was a classical latin expression “Probabilis” means primarily provable and “probabilis causa” means a good reason. The defendant is not required to believe that the accused is guilty and it is enough if he believes that there is reasonable and probable cause for prosecution. Therefore, he need 20 O.S.No.09/2022 only be satisfied that there is a proper case to lay before the Court.
If a person honestly stated his complaint to a responsible police officer, who advises him to prosecute, he will be protected. As discussed above the Defendant No.1 filed a Pvt. Complaint that as the deceased Dhanalaxmi stated to Defendant No.2 while traveling in auto from Veldanda to Dubba Thanda about the harassment made to her by her family members and same was heard by auto driver Jarupula Eshwar on 26.07.2006, on the same day she committed a suicide, further also he relied an Ex.B2 that the toes of deceased Dhanalaxmi was injured the same is not denied by the plaintiff no suggestion was put forth to the DW1. It shows that the circumstances on which the defendant No.1 filed a Pvt. Complaint which shows that he had reasonable explanation further the plaintiff failed prove what was the malicious intention to prosecute the plaintiff, which would be evident in the above said discussions.
Therefore the plaintiff failed to prove the defendants prosecuted the plaintiff maliciously without reasonable and probable cause. For all the foregoing reasons, this court hold the issue i.e., No.1 in favour of defendants against the plaintiff.
15. Issue No.2. whether the suit is bad for non joinder of investigating officer?.
21 O.S.No.09/2022
It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that the present suit is bad for non-joinder of investigating officer. In the present suit claim was made against the defendants. As seen that defendant No.1 filed a pvt. Complaint U/s 306 r/w 109 and 120-B IPC
before the JFCM, Kalwakurthy, took the cognizance for the offence
punishable U/s 306 r/w 109 IPC against the plaintiff and his wife and brother and parents registered as PRC.No.59/2007 committed the same Asst. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar the same was registered as SC.No.371/2011 in which there is no role played by the investigating officer and the relief is only sought for against the defendants, according to the plaintiff defendants were are acted maliciously and he is entitled only damages from the defendants.
Therefore suit is not bad for non joinder of necessary parties
Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
16. Issue No. 3 whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages for a sum of Rs.8 lakhs?
As this court already held in issue no.1 that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants instituted malicious prosecution against the plaintiff, as such this court also holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for damages as prayed, accordingly this issue is answered .
22 O.S.No.09/2022
17.Issue No.4 To what relief :-
By virtue of discussion made as above and findings arrived thereat in respect of the issues No.1 and 3, it must be held that the plaintiff failed to establish the plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted by the defendants for the charge under section 306 of IPC in
SC.No.371 of 2011 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge,
Mahabubnagar, In view of the same, plaintiff is not entitled for grant of damages as prayed for and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
18.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the
open court on this the 24 rd day of April, 2023).
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KALWAKURTHY.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
PW1: Rathlavath Pandu
PW2: Jarpathi Raju
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
23 O.S.No.09/2022
Ex.A1 is the CC of Judgment Dt.13.09.2013 in SC No.371 of 2011.
FOR DEFENDANTS:
DW.1. : Jarpula Srinu
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B1 is CC of Judgment in SC.No.258 of 2011 Dt.21.12.2022
Ex.B2 is CC of Inquest panchanama in SC.No.258 of 2011 Dt 21.1.2022
Ex.B3 is CC of scene of panchanama Dt.23.1.2023
Ex.B4 is CC of judgment in SC.No.371 of 2011 Dt13.09.2013
Ex.B5 is CC of judgment in CC .No.457 of 2007 Dt 03.12.2010.
Ex.B6 is CC of judgment in CC.No.421 of 2007, Dt 05.02.2012
Ex.B7 is Original distance certificate issued by Assistant Executive
Engineer.
Ex.B8 is Original Bonafide of deceased Dhanalakshmi issued by
YRM, Degree college, Kalwakurthy.
Ex.B9 is original Bonafide certificate of Jarpula Srinu (D-1) issued by
YRM, Degree College, kalawakurthy.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KALWAKURTHY.