Delhi District Court
Ram Avtar vs Pushpa Devi on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Ms. PADMA LADOL, CIVIL JUDGE-03,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 369/2018
CNR No. DLSH030007172018
1. Ram Avtar
S/o Ratan Lal
2. Smt. Rama Devi
W/o Sh. Ram Avtar
Both R/o 1/16, West Kanti Nagar,
Delhi-110051 .......Plaintiffs
Versus
Smt. Pushpa Devi
W/o Late Sarwan Kumar
R/o C-99/B, Gali No. 8,
Kanti Nagar Extn.
Delhi-110051 ......Defendant
SUIT FOR MANDATORY, PERMANENT INJUNCTION &
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES/MESNE PROFITS
Date of institution : 19.04.2018
Date of decision : 18.04.2026
Final Order : Partly Decreed
JUDGMENT
I. FACTUAL MATRIX
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date:
2026.04.18
16:31:32 +0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 1 of 31
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant
seeking a relief of damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with
interest @ 18% p.a on account of malicious prosecution.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that earlier they were residing at C -101, Gali
no. 8, Kanti Nagar extension, Delhi-110051 in a rented accommodation
under the land-lordship of one Shri Bharat Singh. Both Bharat Singh and
defendant claimed that they were relatives and the defendant was the
sister-in-law of Bharat Singh. That there was a landlord-tenant dispute
between Bharat Singh and the plaintiffs and on several occasions, Bharat
Singh along with defendant and their other aides picked up quarrel with
them and attempted to dispossess them from the tenanted premises. In this
regard, plaintiffs had made a complaint to the police on 23.02.2011.
Accordingly, police in preventive action prepared a kalandara under
section 107/150 CrPC against the defendant and other persons. On
19.03.2011 at about 10 PM, Bharat Singh along with one Anil, Mithlesh
and the defendant came at the tenanted premises of the plaintiffs and
threatened to vacate the same. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that
Bharat Singh in collusion and conspiracy with the defendant and other
persons wanted to get the plaintiffs evicted from the tenanted premises by
using illegal means despite a stay order granted by Ld. Civil Court during
the period 2009-2011.
3. It is further averred that the defendant having grudges and ill will against
the plaintiffs due to the above said incidents, lodged a false criminal
complaint against the plaintiffs at the instance of the landlord namely,
Bharat Singh. It was alleged in the said complaint that the plaintiffs had
passed ‘casteist’ remarks against the defendant and accordingly, she got
lodged a false and fabricated FIR bearing no. 184/2011 dated 11.07.2011
PADMA Digitally signed by
PADMA LADOL
LADOL Date: 2026.04.18
16:31:38 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 2 of 31
under section 3(1)(x) of The Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST
Act’) at PS Krishna Nagar. After facing the prolonged trial, the plaintiffs
were found innocent by the Ld. Court of Sh. Ravinder Dudeja, Ld. ASJ,
Karkardooma Courts and vide order/judgement dated 24.04.2017
acquitted the plaintiffs from all the charges on the ground that the alleged
caste certificate issued in the name of defendant was forged, fabricated
and was cancelled by the concerned competent issuing authority. It is
further averred that the plaintiffs were innocent and had not committed
any alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the defendant on
the basis of false and baseless complaint. That the defendant malafidely
without any foundation got the said FIR no. 184/2011 registered and has
maliciously prosecuted the plaintiffs by raising false and frivolous
aspersions and levelling serious allegations against the plaintiffs due to
which the reputation of the plaintiffs has maligned in the society and in
other social circle. After registration of the said FIR, the respect and
reputation of the plaintiffs have lowered down in the eyes and estimation
of their family, relatives, neighbours, friends, general society. The
plaintiffs were being treated as untouchables and people avoided and
ignored them due to the stigma of registration of a false FIR and
proceedings arising out of the same. It is further averred that during the
protracted trial for 6 years, plaintiffs remained under continuous mental
torture, harassment and fear of their arrest. Further, the plaintiffs suffered
defamation, harassment, agony and financial losses due to the malicious
prosecution by defendant. Further, the minor son of plaintiffs under fear
of his arrest in the said FIR, and due to the financial losses of family,
could not continue with his studies. It is lastly averred that plaintiff no. 1
at the relevant period was working as an auto driver and was earning
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date: 2026.04.18
16:31:43 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 3 of 31
Rs.1400/- to 1500/- per day. The plaintiffs have claimed damages under
the following head:
(i) Injury/loss to reputation: Rs. 1,00,000/-
(ii) Loss in family honour: Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Mental torture and physical agony: Rs. 30,000/-
(iv) Loss of earning: Rs. 80,000/-
(v) Litigation/legal assistance expenses: Rs. 37,000/-
(vi) Notice charges: Rs. 3000/-
Total: Rs. 3,00,000/-. Hence, the present suit has been instituted by
plaintiffs against the defendant.
4. Upon summons being issued, defendant appeared and filed her Written
Statement (hereinafter referred to as ‘WS’). Preliminary objections were
taken stating that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit. It
is stated that plaintiffs have not come to this Court with clean hands and
has suppressed material facts. That the plaintiffs have filed the present suit
with their wrong address as they are not residing at the address mentioned
in the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiffs are residing at Pradhanwali
Gali, Gali no. 2, Johripur, Delhi. It is further stated that the present suit is
not maintainable as it is time barred as the FIR was registered in the year
2011 and the certificate u/s. SC/ST Act was cancelled in the year 2013.
That the defendant belongs to Jatav community since her birth and is
married in Jatav community. Further, the IO in the FIR No. 184/2011 had
stated that defendant belongs to SC community. That the plaintiffs also
admitted on 06.07.2011 that defendant belongs to Jatav community.
Further that plaintiffs have filed the present suit with malafide intention
and unnecessary to harass and humiliate her. In reply on merits, defendant
has denied all the contents of the plaint and has reiterated the contents of
preliminary objections. It is additionally stated that if plaintiff no. 1 was
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date: 2026.04.18
16:31:49 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 4 of 31
earning Rs. 1400-1500/- per day, he could have filed ITR to prove the
same. Further, that the plaintiff no. 1 was in judicial custody in a criminal
case u/s. 138 NI Act wherein he was convicted. It is thus prayed that suit
may be dismissed with exemplary cost.
5. In the Replication filed by plaintiff, contents of plaint are reiterated and
all the contents of WS are denied. Additionally, plaintiff has denied that
they are residing at Pradhanwali Gali, Gali no. 2, Johripur, Delhi.
II. ISSUES:
6. From the pleading of the parties following issues were framed vide order
dated 14.02.2019:
(i) Whether the suit has been filed within limitation? (OPP)
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of damages? (OPP)
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest? If so, at what rate
and for what period? (OPP)
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to file the present suit?
(OPP)
(v) Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed material facts? (OPD)
(vi) Whether the suit has not been valued properly? (OPD)
(vii) Relief.
III. PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE:
7. To prove their case, the plaintiff no. 1 examined himself as PW-1 by
tendering his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. PW1/A and also tendered
the following documents:
Digitally signed
by PADMA
PADMA LADOL
Date:
LADOL 2026.04.18
16:31:54
+0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 5 of 31
(i) Certified copy of judgment dated 24.04.2017 passed by the court of
Ld. ASJ-02, KKD Courts Certified copy of judgment: Ex. PW-1/1.
(ii) Certified copy of the Caste Certificate from the other court: Ex.
PW-1/2.
(iii) Copies of RTI replies received from the office of Tehsildar,
Anoopshahar, Distt. Bulandshahar: Mark X.
(iv) Certified copies of statements of witnesses made before Ld. Trial
Court: Ex. PW-1/4 (colly).
(v) DD No. 60-B dated 23.10.2017 : Ex. PW-1/5 (running into 5
pages)
(vi) Complaint made to Commissioner of Police: Ex. PW-1/6
(running into 5 pages).
(vii) Replies of RTIs, : Ex. PW-1/7 (colly).
(viii) Copy of legal notice dated 19.09.2017 : Mark Y.
(ix) Original postal receipts of legal notice: Ex.PW1/9.
(x) Certified copy of judgment passed by the court of Ld. ACJ, KKD
Courts: Mark A.
(xi) Copy of FIR No. 184/11, PS Krishna Nagar: Mark B.
He was duly cross examined at length by Ld. counsel for defendant.
Thereafter, plaintiff no. 2 examined herself as PW-2 who tendered her
evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW2/A. The witness was cross
examined by Ld. counsel for defendant. Thereafter, PE stood closed on
23.01.2023.
IV. DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE:
8. In the defendant’s evidence, defendant examined one witness namely,
Nishant Tyagi from DEO, SDM office Shahdara as DW-1 who tendered
the following documents: Digitally signed
by PADMA
PADMA LADOL
LADOL Date:
2026.04.18
16:32:00 +0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 6 of 31
(i) Caste Certificate in the name of defendant: Ex. DW-1/1 (OSR)
(ii) Copy of Cancellation document: Ex. DW-1/2.
Thereafter, defendant examined herself as DW-2. She tendered her
evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW-2/1 and relied on following
documents:
(i) Copy of Aadhar card of DW-2: Ex. DW-2/A
(ii) Copy of Caste Certificate of the father of DW-2: Mark DW-2/B
(iii) Copy of summons of Court: Mark DW-2/C
(iv) Copy of judgment: Mark DW-2/D
(v) Copy of cross-examination of plaintiff Rama Devi: Mark DW-2/E
(vi) Copy of complaint given to police: Mark DW-2/F.
The witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for plaintiff. Thereafter,
DE stood closed on 08.06.2023.
Matter was fixed for final arguments.
V. FINAL ARGUMENTS:
9. In the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs has contended that both
the plaintiffs suffered incarceration due to the false FIR registered by
defendant. Not just that, son of plaintiffs also faced trial before Juvenile
Justice Board due to which he was compelled to drop out from school and
could never restart his education. He further contended that plaintiffs
suffered for 6 years due to the false criminal case filed by defendant and
education of all three children of plaintiffs was badly affected despite
being bright students. It is further argued that due to monetary loss
suffered on account of incarceration/loss of income and legal expenses,
the concerned Auto agency (owner) took back the TSR of plaintiff no. 1
as he could not pay the loan installments/EMI of TSR and consequently,
he also faced trial u/s. 138 NI Act for the said reason. Digitally signedPADMA by PADMA
LADOLLADOL 2026.04.18
Date:
16:32:05 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 7 of 31
10. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendants has contended that plaintiffs have
given no explanation as to how they loss family honour due to the
criminal case filed by defendant and no basis is given for the computation
of the damages under various heads claimed by plaintiffs. He has fairly
conceded that the plaintiffs can claim damages on account of ‘injury/loss
to the reputation as a person’ as sought in para 10 (i) of the plaint and rest
of the heads are vague as no documentary proofs or other evidence have
been produced in support of such claims.
11. The rival contentions raised by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff and
defendants have been heard. Written submissions filed by the plaintiffs
and all the materials available on record have been given due
consideration after careful and minute perusal.
VI. FINDINGS:
12. My issue wise findings with reasons thereof are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1: Whether the suit has been filed within limitation?
(OPP)
13. The burden to prove this issue was on plaintiffs. In this regard, the
plaintiffs have relied on the judgment of Sh. Ravinder Dudeja, then Ld.
ASJ-02 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dated 24.04.2017 [Ex.
PW-1/1] vide which both the plaintiffs were acquitted of all the charges in
case FIR No. 184/2011 u/s. 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act. This judgment is an
admitted document. In the para 5 of preliminary objections in the WS,
defendant has raised an objection with regard to the limitation period by
stating that the present suit is time barred as the FIR was registered in the
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date:
2026.04.18
16:32:10 +0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 8 of 31
year 2011 and the certificate of SC/ST was cancelled in the year 2013.
Other than this, no other objection has been taken by defendant on the
aspect of limitation at any stage of proceedings. Not a single question has
been put to any of the plaintiffs’ witnesses in this regard.
14. The said objection taken by the defendant is misplaced for the reason that
the limitation period for filing a suit seeking compensation for a malicious
prosecution is governed by Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963
according to which the limitation period is 1 year from the date when the
plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. Therefore,
date of registration of FIR or cancellation of caste certificate as contended
by defendant are irrelevant for computation of limitation for the present
suit. As stated in the preceding paragraph, the judgment vide which the
plaintiffs were acquitted of the charges under SC/ST Act is dated
24.04.2017. The present suit having been filed on 19.04.2018 is well
within the limitation period of 1 year. The law in this regard is also
strengthened by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Energy Infrastructure
(India) Ltd. v. J.S Malik and Anr. 2020 SCC OnLine Del 308, by taking
a view that the limitation for filing a suit for compensation for malicious
prosecution is one year under Article 74 of the Schedule to the Limitation
Act of 1963, and such time is to be computed from the date when the
plaintiff is acquitted or prosecution is otherwise terminated. The same
position has been reiterated by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Mohan
Banerjee vs State of Delhi, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 6094.
15. In view of the above findings, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of
plaintiffs and against the defendant.
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date: 2026.04.18
16:32:16 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 9 of 31
ISSUE NO. 4: Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to file the
present suit? (OPP)
16. The burden to prove this issue was on plaintiffs. As already seen above,
the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking damages for malicious
prosecution on account of one FIR bearing no. 184/2011 registered by
defendant against both the plaintiffs, and in this alleged false case, both
the plaintiffs were acquitted vide judgment dated 24.04.2017. It is an
admitted fact that defendant had registered the said FIR and that the
plaintiffs were ultimately acquitted of all the charges under the said FIR.
In this regard, plaintiffs have filed all the relevant documents including
Copy of FIR no. 184/2011, judgment dated 24.04.2017 and certified
copies of the deposition of the witnesses in the said criminal case. These
documents have not been disputed by defendant at any stage of
proceedings.
17. Per contra, in para 2 of preliminary objections in the WS, it is simply
stated that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit against
the defendant, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any discretionary
relief from this Court. However, no explanation whatsoever has been
given by the defendant as to how the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file
the present suit. It appears that this objection has been taken only for the
sake of it without any ground whatsoever. This is also because in para 10
of the WS, defendant has raised an objection that the suit is not
maintainable as the plaintiff has not filed proper and correct site plan with
the plaint, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. Defendant has quite
forgotten that the present suit is not the one involving any immovable
property or one requiring a site plan. It is surprising how objections are
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date:
2026.04.18
16:32:22 +0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 10 of 31
taken in the WS without application of mind and actually reading its
contents before filing. Moreover, none of the plaintiffs (PW-1 or PW-2)
were cross-examined on this aspect at all.
18. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Shri Ram Singh Batra v. Smt.
Sharan Premi 133 (2006) DLT 126, has held that the cause of action to
file a suit for malicious prosecution will arise after the plaintiff obtains an
order of acquittal or discharge in his favour. Same view has also been
taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in Shanmugam v. G.
Saravanan 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 728. The case in hand has been filed
after the acquittal of plaintiffs in the criminal case bearing FIR No.
184/2011.
19. The allegations in the plaint and all the documents relied upon by the
plaintiffs establish cause of action and their locus to file the present suit.
Accordingly, issue no. 4 is decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the
defendant.
ISSUE NO. 5: Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed material facts?
(OPD)
20. The burden to prove this issue was on defendant. In para 3 of the
preliminary objection in the WS as well as para 1 of the reply on merits in
the WS, the defendant has taken an objection that the plaintiffs have not
come to this Court with clean hands and have suppressed material facts in
their knowledge, in order to intentionally harass the defendant. In this
regard, it is further stated that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit with
their wrong address. That the plaintiffs are not residing at the address
mentioned in the plaint, rather they are residing in Pradhanwali Gali, Gali Digitally signed
by PADMA
PADMA LADOL
LADOL Date:
2026.04.18
16:32:27 +0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 11 of 31
no. 2, Johripur Delhi which is reflecting from the statement on oath given
before Ld. ASJ-02, KKD Courts on 06.03.2017. It is further stated therein
that the plaintiffs are notorious persons and are facing criminal and civil
proceedings pending before various Courts and further, plaintiff no. 1 was
in judicial custody since 18.04.2018.
21. In the replication, it is stated by the plaintiffs that after the
compromise/court settlement, plaintiffs had vacated the tenanted premises
and are currently residing at Pradhanwali Gali, Gali no. 2, Joharipur,
Delhi. Further, the affidavits filed by both the plaintiffs along with
replication on 11.12.2018 bear the address of Pradhanwali Gali as their
current address and previous address as H.No.1/16, West Kanti Nagar,
Delhi-110051 (which is mentioned in the memo of parties). However, in
the testimony of PW-1 dated 19.08.2019, again the address of 1/16, West
Kanti Nagar is reflecting. Further, in the deposition of plaintiff no. 2
(DW-1 therein) dated 06.03.2017 in case FIR No. 184/2011, address of
Pradhanwali Gali has been mentioned. However, in the cross-examination
of PW-1 dated 19.08.2019, he has deposed that at the time of giving
evidence in the Court of Sh. Ravinder Dudeja, Ld. ASJ in and around
March 2017, he and along with his family members were residing at 1/16,
West Kanti Nagar, Delhi. As noted herein, it is correct that there are
certain discrepancies in the address of plaintiffs; however, in the
considered opinion of this Court, it does not have real bearing on the
merits of the present suit. Moreover, the present suit relates to
compensation/damages for malicious prosecution and the past or present
address of the plaintiffs are irrelevant to the present dispute, more so,
when it is an admitted by defendant in he cross-examination that plaintiffs
used to live in a one room rented accommodation in the same vicinity as
hers at the relevant time. Further, apropos judicial custody of plaintiff no.Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date:
2026.04.18
16:32:35 +0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 12 of 31
1 since 18.04.2018 as stated by defendant, it is not clear as to which case
the plaintiff no. 1 was allegedly in judicial custody, whether it is case FIR
No. 184/2011 or Criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act bearing no.
49208/16 in which the plaintiff no. 1 was the accused and vide judgment
dated 28.11.2017 [Mark DW-2/D], he was convicted. This objection is
vague in nature, bereft of any specific details including its relevancy to
the present suit. Further, no evidence has been led and no questions have
been put to the PWs by defendant to establish that plaintiffs have
suppressed certain facts which are material to the present suit.
22. In view of the above findings, issue no. 5 is decided in favour of
plaintiffs and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 6: Whether the suit has not been valued properly? (OPD)
23. The burden to prove this issue was on defendant. However, no evidence
has been led by the defendant to prove the issue. Therefore, the issue is
decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of
damages? (OPP)
24. The burden to prove this issue was on plaintiffs. The case of the
plaintiffs is that earlier they had a dispute related to the previous rented
accommodation with their landlord, namely Bharat Singh. That Bharat
Singh called the defendant his sister-in-law. On several occasions, Bharat
Singh along with defendant and their other aids had picked up quarrels
with them and attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs and their family from
the tenanted premises. In this regard, plaintiffs had made a complaint to
the police on 23.02.2011. Accordingly, police in preventive action Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date:
2026.04.18
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 13 of 31
16:32:41 +0530
prepared a kalandara u/s. 107/150 CrPC against the defendant and other
persons. On 19.03.2011 at about 10 PM, Bharat Singh along with one
Anil, Mithlesh and the defendant came at the tenanted premises of the
plaintiffs and threatened them to vacate the same. It is the claim of the
plaintiffs that Bharat Singh in collusion and conspiracy with the defendant
and other persons attempted to evict the plaintiffs from the tenanted
premises by using illegal means despite a judgment granting permanent
injunction against Bharat Singh and his wife by the then Ld. ACJ, KKD
dated 28.01.2011. It is further the claim of plaintiffs that the defendant
having grudges and ill will against the plaintiffs due to the above said
incidents and in furtherance of her ill design, lodged a false police
complaint against them at the instance and in collusion of the landlord
namely, Bharat Singh. It was alleged in the said complaint that the
plaintiffs had passed ‘casteist’ remarks against the defendant and
accordingly, she got lodged a false and fabricated FIR bearing no.
184/2011 dated 11.07.2011 under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1959 at PS Krishna
Nagar. Plaintiffs suffered a prolonged trial of 6 years and ultimately they
were acquitted of all charges under the said FIR. It is further the case of
plaintiffs that due to the malicious prosecution of defendant, they not only
suffered financial loss but also suffered loss of reputation, constant mental
harassment, torture, agony and humiliation in front of relatives, neighbors
and friends.
25. Plaintiff no.1 has examined himself as PW-1. He has reiterated his above
claims in his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. PW-1/A. In his cross-
examination, PW-1 has stated that at the time of registration of FIR in
question, he was driving a TSR and currently he is driving a cab. That he
has not placed any ITR on record or any proof with respect to his income.
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL 16:32:48
Date: 2026.04.18
+0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 14 of 31
He has further stated that he had no knowledge if the defendant belongs to
Jatav community. PW-1 denied a suggestion given by the Ld. Counsel for
defendant that on the occasion of Holi, he had passed casteist remarks on
the defendant due to which defendant filed the FIR against him. He
voluntarily stated that he did not pass any casteist remarks. PW-1 then
conceded that four of the witnesses in the Criminal case bearing FIR No.
184/2011 had deposed of the caste coloured remarks hurled by him upon
the defendant. He then admitted that he was acquitted in the said case as
the defendant could not prove her caste or that she belonged to SC/ST
community.
26. Plaintiff no. 2 appeared as PW-2. She also reiterated the same facts as
mentioned in the plaint in her evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. PW-2/A.
In her cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that Bharat Singh and defendant
called themselves as jija and saali, being from the same village. She
denied having knowledge about the caste of Bharat Singh as well as that
of defendant. She also denied having knowledge about the native village
of defendant. She further denied if defendant belongs to Jatav community.
PW-2 also denied having knowledge about the name of defendant’s
husband. She admitted that she and her husband (PW-1) did not file any
complaint against the defendant before 2011 as no fight had taken place
between them. She denied the suggestion that she had uttered casteist
words against the defendant and accordingly, FIR No. 184/2011 was
lodged at PS Krishna Nagar. She then deposed that she knows about the
pending appeal of defendant against the judgment in the said criminal
case. PW-2 further deposed that she knows the defendant since 10 years
prior to registration of the FIR. She denied the suggestion that defendant
belongs to Jatav community.
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL 2026.04.18
Date:
16:32:53 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 15 of 31
27. In the Defence evidence, DW-1, one Nishant Tyagi, a witness from SDM
office, District Shahdara had appeared. He brought the records pertaining
to Caste Certificate issued in the name of defendant. He deposed that the
Caste Certificate [Ex. DW-1/1 (OSR)] was issued on 06.12.2018.
However, it was cancelled vide cancellation document [Ex. DW-1/2] on
29.11.2019 pursuant to the judgment of Ld. ASJ, East, Karkardooma
Courts dated 24.04.2017. Witness was not cross-examined despite giving
opportunity.
28. Thereafter, defendant examined herself as DW-2. She has reiterated the
contents of her WS in her evidence by way of affidavit at Ex. DW-2/1. In
her cross-examination, she conceded that after the decision in her criminal
case bearing FIR No. 184/2011, she neither filed any appeal nor any
revision till the institution of the present case. DW-2 failed to recollect if
she had sent reply to the notice of plaintiffs pertaining to the present case.
She admitted that when IO in the criminal case asked for caste certificate,
she told him that she would provide after getting the same prepared. She
then made a voluntary submission that she then got the Caste Certificate
prepared firstly from District Bulandshehar, U.P which was later
cancelled. Then thereafter, she got the same prepared from Shahdara
District, Delhi. However, DW-2 expressed her lack of knowledge if the
subsequent certificate has also been cancelled. She then admitted that
Shravan Kumar is her second husband however, she could not recall the
name of her first husband and stated that she has not taken divorce from
her first husband through Court. She stated that it was done in Panchayat.
PW-2 then again admitted that both the plaintiffs used to reside in one
room house on rent in the same vicinity as hers. She also admitted that
their three children were studying in school and that plaintiff no. 1 was the
only earning member of his family. She also conceded that he used to earn
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date: 2026.04.18
16:32:59 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 16 of 31
from driving an auto rickshaw, however, she did not know if it was taken
by him on rent. She further admitted that plaintiffs were acquitted in the
criminal case as the concerned Court had observed that she did not belong
to Jatav caste. DW-2 also conceded that she had given a complaint against
the son of the plaintiffs namely, Sonu, who was a minor at that time.
29. At this juncture, it is imperative to first discuss the meaning of malicious
prosecution. Black’s Law Dictionary defines malicious prosecution as “a
legal proceeding that is initiated without probable cause and with harmful
intent.” In simpler terms, malicious prosecution is when someone files a
case just to cause trouble or harm to another person, rather than pursuing
justice. In the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Dilip
Kumar Ray 2007 (14) SCC 568, the Hon’ble Supreme Court thoroughly
discussed the concept and explained what malicious prosecution means. It
is when someone starts a legal case against another person, not because
they have a valid reason, but with a dishonest or unfair motive. In other
words, it is using the legal system to harm or trouble someone, even
though there’s no good reason to justify the case. It was held that:
“15. Malice and malicious prosecution as stated in Advanced Law
Lexicon, 3rd Edn. by P. Ramanatha Aiyar read as follows:
“Malice.–Unlawful intent. Ill will; intent to commit an unlawful act or
cause harm. Express or actual malice is ill will or spite towards the
plaintiff or any indirect or improper motive in the defendant’s mind at the
time of the publication which is his sole or dominant motive for
publishing the words complained of. This must be distinguished from legal
malice or malice in law which means publication without lawful excuse
and does not depend upon the defendant’s state of mind.
Digitally
signed by
PADMA
PADMA LADOL
LADOL Date:
2026.04.18
16:33:04
+0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 17 of 31
(1) The intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act.
(2) Reckless disregard of the law or of a person’s legal rights. (3) Ill will;
wickedness of heart. This sense is most typical in non-legal contexts.
‘Malice means in law wrongful intention. It includes any intent which the
law deems wrongful, and which therefore serves as a ground of liability.
Any act done with such an intent is, in the language of the law, malicious,
and this legal usage has etymology in its favour. The Latin malitia means
badness, physical or moral– wickedness in disposition or in conduct–
not specifically or exclusively ill will or malevolence; hence the malice of
English law, including all forms of evil purpose, design, intent, or motive.
[But] intent is of two kinds, being either immediate or ulterior, the ulterior
intent being commonly distinguished as the motive. The term malice is
applied in law to both these forms of intent, and the result is a somewhat
puzzling ambiguity which requires careful notice. When we say that an act
is done maliciously, we mean one of the two distinct things. We mean
either that it is done intentionally, or that it is done with some wrongful
motive.’
‘Malice in the legal sense imports (1) the absence of all elements of
justification, excuse or recognised mitigation, and (2) the presence of
either (a) an actual intent to cause the particular harm which is produced
or harm of the same general nature, or (b) the wanton and wilful doing of
an act with awareness of a plain and strong likelihood that such harm
may result………….
‘MALICE’, in the legal acceptance of the word is not confined to personal
spite against individuals but consists in a conscious violation of the law to
the prejudice of another. In its legal sense it means a wrongful act done
intentionally without just cause or excuse.
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL 2026.04.18
Date:
16:33:09 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 18 of 31
‘Malice’, in its legal sense, does not necessarily signify ill will towards a
particular individual, but denotes that condition of mind which is
manifested by the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or
excuse. Therefore the law implies malice where one deliberately injures
another in an unlawful manner.
Malice means an indirect wrong motive.
‘… “malice” in its legal sense means, malice such as may be assumed
from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or
excuse, or for want of reasonable or probable cause.’Malice, in ordinary common parlance, means ill will against a person,
and in legal sense, a wrongful act done intentionally, without just cause or
reason.
It is a question of motive, intention or state of mind and may be defined as
any corrupt or wrong motive or personal spite or ill will.
‘Malice’ in common law or acceptance means ill will against a person,
but in legal sense it means a wrongful act done intentionally without just
cause or excuse. It signifies an intentional doing of a wrongful act without
just cause or excuse or an action determined by an improper motive.
…..Malice in its common acceptation, is a term involving some intent of
the mind and heart, including the will; and has been said to mean a bad
mind; ill will against a person; a wicked or evil state of the mind towards
another; an evil intent or wish or design to vex or annoy another; a wilful
intent to do a wrongful act; a wish to vex, annoy or injure another person
or an intent to do a wrongful act; a condition of the mind which shows a
heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief.
“Malice” means wickedness of purpose, or a spiteful or malevolent
design against another; a purpose to injure another; a design of doing
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date: 2026.04.18
16:33:15 +0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 19 of 31
mischief, or any evil design or inclination to do a bad thing, or a reckless
disregard to the rights of others, or absence or legal excuse, or any other
motive than that of bringing a party to justice.’‘The meaning of the term malice in English law, has been a question of
much difficulty and controversy; and those who made through the many
disquisitions on the subjects in textbooks and judicial opinions are almost
tempted to the conclusion that the meaning varies almost infinitely, and
that the only sense which the term can safely be predicated not to have in
any given legal context is that which it has in popular language viz. spite
or ill will. It certainly has different meanings with respect to responsibility
for civil wrongs and responsibility for crime; and even with respect to
crime it has a different sense according as it is used with reference to
murder, libel, or the capacity of an infant to commit crime, expressed by
the rule malitia supplet act item.’ (Ency. of the Laws of England.)
Ordinarily, the absence of reasonable and probable cause in instituting a
proceeding which terminates in favour of the plaintiff, would give rise to
the inference of malice.
Malice has been said to mean any wrong or indirect motive but a
prosecution is not malicious merely because it is inspired by anger.
However, wrong-headed a prosecutor may be, if he honestly thinks that
the accused has been guilty of a criminal offence he cannot be initiator of
a malicious prosecution.
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. It means an improper or
indirect motive other than a desire to vindicate public justice or a private
right. It need not necessarily be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill will; it may
be due to a desire to obtain a collateral advantage……….
PADMA Digitally signed by
PADMA LADOL
Date: 2026.04.18
LADOL 16:33:20 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 20 of 31
***Malice in fact.–‘Malice in fact’ means express malice.
Malice in fact or actual malice, relates to the actual state or condition of
the mind of the person who did the act.
Malice in fact is where the malice is not established by legal presumption
or proof of certain facts, but is to be found from the evidence in the case.
Malice in fact implies a desire or intention to injure, while malice in law
is not necessarily inconsistent with an honest purpose.
Malice in law.–‘Malice in law’ means implied malice.
‘Malice in law’ simply means a depraved inclination on the part of a
person to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by his
injurious acts.
***
Malice in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the
doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or
for want of reasonable or probable cause…….
*
Malicious.–Done with malice or an evil design; wilful; indulging in
malice, harboring ill will, or enmity malevolent, malignant in heart;
committed wantonly, wilfully, or without cause, or done not only wilfully
and intentionally, but out of cruelty, hostility of revenge; done in wilful
neglect of a known obligation.
‘Malicious’ means with a fixed hate, or done with evil intention or motive;
not the result of sudden passion.
*** ……………..
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date: 2026.04.18
16:33:26 +0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 21 of 31
Malicious act.–Bouvier defined a malicious act as ‘a wrongful act,
intentionally done, without cause or excuse’.
A malicious act is one committed in a state of mind which shows a heart
regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief–a wrongful act
intentionally done, without legal justification or excuse.
‘A malicious act is an act characterised by a pre-existing or an
accompanying malicious state of mind. …’Malicious prosecution–Malice.– Malice means an improper or indirect
motive other than a desire to vindicate public justice or a private right. It
need not necessarily be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill will. It may be due
to a desire to obtain a collateral advantage.
The principles to be borne in mind in the case of actions for malicious
prosecutions are these:–Malice is not merely the doing of a wrongful act
intentionally but it must be established that the defendant was actuated by
malus animus, that is to say, by spite or ill will or any indirect or
improper motive. But if the defendant had reasonable or probable cause
of launching the criminal prosecution no amount of malice will make him
liable for damages. Reasonable and probable cause must be such as
would operate on the mind of a discreet and reasonable man; ‘malice’ and
‘want of reasonable and probable cause,’ have reference to the state of the
defendant’s mind at the date of the initiation of criminal proceedings and
the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove them.
…………….
16. “[‘Malice’ means and implies spite or ill will.] Incidentally, be it
noted that the expression ‘mala fide’ is not meaningless jargon and it has
its proper connotation. Malice or mala fides can only be appreciated from
the records of the case in the facts of each case. There cannot possibly be
Digitally signedPADMA by PADMA
LADOLLADOL Date:
2026.04.18
16:33:31 +0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 22 of 31
any set guidelines in regard to the proof of mala fides. Mala fides, where
it is alleged, depends upon its own facts and circumstances.”……..
17. “12. The legal meaning of malice is ‘ill will or spite towards a party
and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action’. This is
sometimes described as ‘malice in fact’. ‘Legal malice’ or ‘malice in law’
means ‘something done without lawful excuse’. In other words, ‘it is an
act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause,
and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate
act in disregard of the rights of others.” (See State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal
Pitti [(2003) 4 SCC 739], SCC p. 744, para 12.)”
30. It is writ large from above that a malicious act has been equated with
intentional act without just cause or excuse. The principles to be borne in
mind in the case of actions for malicious prosecutions are these: Malice is
not merely the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but it must be
established that the defendant was actuated by malus animus, that is to
say, by spite or ill will or any indirect or improper motive. But if the
defendant had reasonable or probable cause of launching the criminal
prosecution no amount of malice will make him liable for damages. In
other words, the prosecution is only malicious when the FIR is false even
as per the knowledge of the informant. Where the defendant himself
believed that proceedings were justified and there was a reasonable and
probable cause, defendant cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution.
Reasonable and probable cause must be such as would operate on the
mind of a discreet and reasonable man. ‘Malice’ and ‘want of reasonable
and probable cause,’ have reference to the state of the defendant’s mind at
the date of the initiation of criminal proceedings and the onus rests on the
plaintiff to prove them. This position of law has been reiterated by the
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date: 2026.04.18
16:33:38 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 23 of 31
Hon’ble Supreme Court in several judgments including Prabodh Sagar
Vs. Punjab SEB, (2000) 5 SCC 630 and also in State of A.P v.
Goverdhanlal Pitti (2003) 4 SCC 739 wherein it was observed as under:
“12. The legal meaning of malice is ‘ill will or spite towards a party and
any indirect or improper motive in taking an action’. This is sometimes
described as ‘malice in fact’. ‘Legal malice’ or ‘malice in law’ means
‘something done without lawful excuse’. In other words, ‘it is an act done
wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not
necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in
disregard of the rights of others.”
31. To claim damages on account of malicious prosecution four ingredients
need to be proved:
(i) Plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant.
(ii) Termination of proceedings in favour of the plaintiff.
(iii) Defendant acted maliciously and without reasonable and probable
cause and
(iv) Plaintiff suffered damages on account of the prosecution.
32. In this backdrop, the facts of the present suit have to be analysed. The
plaintiffs have claimed that defendant was in hand in gloves with their
erstwhile landlord, Bharat Singh and both of them along with their aides
forcibly and illegally attempted to evict them from their tenanted
premises. Therefore, plaintiffs made a police complaint on 23.02.2011.
Accordingly, police in preventive action prepared a kalandara u/s.
107/150 CrPC [part of Ex. PW-1/1] against the defendant and other
persons. On 19.03.2011 at about 10 PM, Bharat Singh along with one
Anil, Mithlesh and the defendant came at the tenanted premises of the
plaintiffs and threatened them to vacate the same. It is the claim of the Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL 2026.04.18
Date:
16:33:43 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 24 of 31
plaintiffs that Bharat Singh in collusion and conspiracy with the defendant
and other persons attempted to evict them from the tenanted premises by
using illegal means despite a judgment granting permanent injunction
against Bharat Singh and his wife from restraining them from
dispossessing the plaintiffs from tenanted premises without due process of
law, by the then Ld. ACJ, KKD dated 28.01.2011 [Ex. AD1]. Therefore,
the defendant having grudges and ill will against the plaintiffs due to the
above said incidents filed a false FIR bearing no. 184/2011 [Ex. AD2]
against them under SC/ST Act by preparing a forged Caste Certificate
[Ex. PW-1/2]. Hence, the Court of Sh. Ravinder Dudeja, Ld. ASJ-02,
East, Karkardooma Courts vide judgments dated 14.04.2017 [Ex. PW-1/1]
acquitted both the plaintiffs.
33. Plaintiffs have shown that the defendant prosecuted them by registering
FIR No. 184/2011, PS Krishna Nagar u/s. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1959 in
which both of them were ultimately acquitted. Hence, both first and
second ingredients as laid down in para 32 above are fulfilled. With
respect to third ingredient, viz. defendant acted maliciously and without
reasonable and probable cause, plaintiffs have claimed that defendant with
an ill will, without any reasonable cause, whatsoever and in order to
harass the plaintiffs through the criminal case, forged her Caste Certificate
which undoubtedly shows the malice on the part of defendant. In the final
arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendant Sh. Naipal Singh fairly conceded
that the judgment of Ld. ASJ-02 dated 24.04.2017 entitles the plaintiffs to
a damages for malicious prosecution, and he raised objection only to the
extent of quantification of such damages.
34. Perusal of judgment in case bearing no. 184/2011 dated 24.04.2017 [Ex.
PW-1/1] reflects that Pushpa Devi (defendant herein) in her cross-
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date: 2026.04.18
16:33:49 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 25 of 31
examination admitted that she was not having caste certificate at the time
of registration of FIR on her complaint. She admitted that when caste
certificate was asked by IO, she went to SDM Office, Gandhi Nagar for
preparation of the same. She further admitted that SDM Office refused to
issue the caste certificate to her but later on it was prepared by
SDM/Tehsildar of Jhagirabad, Anoop Sehar, District Bulandsehar, U.P.
The judgment further reveals that one PW-9, Sayeeda Naheed Shafiq from
the office of Tehsildar, Anoop Sehar had appeared to prove the caste
certificate of Pushpa Devi. The said witness deposed that the caste
certificate, Ex. PW-1/C was issued by her office on 02.12.2011 and she
produced the relevant register, Ex. PW-9/A having the entry of such
issuance. The said witness further deposed that as per records, the caste
certificate of Pushpa Devi has been cancelled on 18.01.2013 by the order
of the then Tehsildar and the entry in this regard has been duly made in
the relevant register, Ex. PW-9/A. The judgment further mentions that as
per reply [Mark G] received by accused Rama Devi (plaintiff no. 2
herein) from Tehsildar, Anoop Sehar under RTI Act, it was found on
verification that late Sh. Jetu Singh had no daughter by the name of
Pushpa Devi, therefore it was found that the caste certificate no.
11411403970 of Pushpa Devi was fraudulently obtained and hence, the
same was cancelled. The said Ld. Court made observations that the victim
(defendant herein) fraudulently obtained a caste certificate and since it is
not proved that she belongs to a SC/ST community, no offence u/s. 3(1)
(x) of the SC/ST Act is made out, hence, acquitted both the plaintiffs
(accused therein).
35. It is pertinent to note that DW-1, Sh. Nishant Tyagi, DEO, SDM Office,
District Shahdara, Vivek Vihar Delhi had brought the original Caste
Certificate [Ex. DW-1/1 (OSR)] in the name of defendant which was
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date: 2026.04.18
16:33:55 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 26 of 31
issued on 06.12.2018. The witness deposed that the said caste certificate
was cancelled on 29.11.2019 pursuant to the judgment of Sh. Ravinder
Dudeja, Ld. ASJ dated 24.04.2017. He produced the cancellation
document [Ex. DW-1/2]. It is significant to note that after the registration
of FIR and upon the asking of IO, defendant got a forged caste certificate
prepared from Tehsildar office, Anoop Sehar in Bulandsehar, U.P which
got cancelled on 18.01.2013 upon verification. The RTI Reply [Mark X]
which is not a disputed document mentions that the caste certificate was
found to be forged/fake as there is no daughter of Sh. Jetu Singh by the
name of Pushpa Devi. It transpires from Ex. DW-1/2 that thereafter,
defendant again applied for a caste certificate in SDM Office, Vivek
Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi on 21.08.2018 which also stood cancelled on
29.11.2019 pursuant to the judgment dated 24.04.2017. The factum of
preparation of caste certificate second time from Shahdara District has
been admitted by defendant in her cross-examination.
36. It is writ large that the defendant set the criminal law in motion by
registering the FIR No. 184/2011 while knowing that she does not belong
to SC/ST community and by preparing a forged caste certificate. An
attempt was made by her to hoodwink the government and authorities to
procure a false/forged certificate. A suggestion was given to PW-1 in his
cross-examination that the plaintiffs were acquitted in the criminal case
not on merits but with a finding that the caste certificate was obtained by
defendant fraudulently. In the considered opinion of this Court, obtaining
a fake/forged caste certificate is in itself reflects a strong malice on the
part of defendant. It strongly supports absence of reasonable and probable
cause, because the very basis of invoking the SC/ST Act would be false. It
is not the claim of defendant that she had the caste certificate even before
registration of FIR and that she did not know it was forged/false. Rather, Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL 2026.04.18
Date:
16:34:02 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 27 of 31
she herself got the same prepared only when IO in the FIR No. 184/2011
had asked about the certificate, therefore, on the scale of preponderance of
probabilities, it can be very well concluded that defendant fraudulently
got the certificate prepared. The contention that plaintiffs were acquitted
not on merits but on account of fraudulent certificate is misplaced. Since
the very first ingredient of Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act that the victim must
be a member of SC/ST community was missing, it is akin to an honorable
acquittal and there was no need for the Ld. Court to go to next ingredients
of the said provision. Therefore, this Court is satisfied with the
submissions of Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs that defendant without any
reasonable and probable cause got the FIR registered against the
plaintiffs.
37. Now the question is with respect to quantum of damages. The Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in R. L Soni v. Singhara Singh AIR 1992 Delhi 264
observed that:
“As far as damages are concerned, the plaintiff has not faced the trial and
had not incurred any expenditure in defending the complaint in the Court
of law. However, there is evidence led by the plaintiff which I have no
reason to doubt that the plaintiffs reputation has suffered because of said
malicious prosecution brought by the defendant inasmuch as the
defendant had tried to serve non bailable warrants of arrest on the
plaintiff and on finding that plaintiff was not available he had tried to
show the plaintiff as a criminal and absconder from law by his utterances
while trying to serve the said warrants in presence of the workers of the
plaintiff and other persons. In an action for malicious prosecution the
damages would represent first the general damages, a solarium for
injured feelings and reputation. The second would be special damages for
actual damages incurred by the plaintiff as a pecuniary loss. In the Digitally signedPADMA by PADMA
LADOLLADOL Date:
2026.04.18
16:34:08 +0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 28 of 31
present case, the plaintiff is claiming general damages because of his
being humiliated and harassed by such malicious pro section and his
esteem having been lowered in the eyes of his relations and friends.”
38. The plaintiffs have claimed damages under the following head:
(i) Injury/loss to reputation: Rs. 1,00,000/-
(ii) Loss in family honour: Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Mental torture and physical agony: Rs. 30,000/-
(iv) Loss of earning: Rs. 80,000/-
(v) Litigation/legal assistance expenses: Rs. 37,000/-
(vi) Notice charges: Rs. 3000/-
Total: Rs. 3,00,000/-
It is a settled position of law that in case of malicious prosecution, general
damages may be granted as a solatium for injured feelings and reputation.
Special damages or actual damages for pecuniary loss may also be
granted. It is pertinent to note that plaintiffs have faced a complete trial
for a period of 6 years. Further, it is an admitted fact that at the time of
registration of FIR, plaintiff no. 1 used to earn his livelihood from driving
an auto rickshaw/TSR and he was the only earning member of his family
comprising of wife/plaintiff no. 2 and three school going children.
Plaintiffs have claimed that plaintiff no. 1 was earning Rs 1400-1500/- per
day from his TSR. Though he has not furnished any income proof/ITR but
it can be safely assumed that he was earning at least Rs. 1000/- per day.
With respect to conviction of plaintiff no. 1 in criminal complaint under
Section 138 NI Act bearing no. 49208/16 vide judgment dated 28.11.2017
[Mark DW-2/D], it is not completely out of place to belief the contention
of plaintiffs that due to loss of earning on account of his arrest in FIR No.
184/2011 and subsequent prosecution, he could not pay the EMI of his
TSR as he was the sole earning member of family. One additional Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL Date: 2026.04.18
16:34:14 +0530
Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 29 of 31
admitted fact is that defendant had also made a complaint against one of
the sons of plaintiffs namely Sonu in the same FIR and since he was a
minor, challan against him was filed before JJB. Therefore, loss of his
education on account of proceedings before JJB as contended by plaintiffs
is a natural consequence. However, as rightly contended by the Ld.
Counsel for defendant, plaintiffs have not furnished any evidence to show
loss of family honour due to the criminal case. Hence, considering the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant
a lump sum damages in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
39. Accordingly, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the
defendant.
ISSUE NO. 3: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest? If so, at
what rate and for what period? (OPP)
40. It is trite law that the award of interest u/s. 34 of CPC is a discretionary
exercise steeped in equitable considerations. This view has been recently
upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.K Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 INSC 418. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion
that interest of justice would met if the plaintiffs are granted a lump sum
damages to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- as stated in the previous issue and
grant of interest is not warranted. Accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided in
favour of defendant and against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 7: RELIEF
Digitally signed
by PADMA
PADMA LADOL
Date:
LADOL 2026.04.18
16:34:21
+0530Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 30 of 31
41. As a net result of the aforesaid findings, this suit is partly decreed with
cost in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant to the effect that
defendant shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the plaintiffs
towards damages for malicious prosecution.
42. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room
after due compliance.
Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL 2026.04.18
Date:
16:34:26 +0530
Pronounced in open court Padma Ladol
Dated: 18.04.2026 Civil Judge-03, Shahdara,
KKD Courts, Delhi
18.04.2026Note: This Judgment contains 31 pages and all the pages have been
checked and signed by me. Digitally signed
by PADMA
PADMA LADOL
Date:
LADOL 2026.04.18
16:34:32
+0530Padma Ladol
Civil Judge-03, Shahdara,
KKD Courts, Delhi
18.04.2026Civil Suit No. 369/2018 Page 31 of 31
