CASE STUDY

CCE COMPONENT- 2

Topic - RAM LAL VS MAHENDER SINGH

AIR 2008 RAJ 8

CMR SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

CMR UNIVERSITY

Course Teacher: Prof. Hannah Name of the Student: DIVYA S

Date: 24th May 2022 USN No: 008
Sem/Program: 2nd SEM LLB
Signature: Divya Date and Signature:
 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. CASE STUDY

3. FACTS OF CASE

4. ARGUMENTS

5. JUDGMENT

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 INTRODUCTION

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. It includes three essential

ingredients. Firstly it should be done intentionally or maliciously pursuing legal action.
Secondly, it is brought without probable cause. Thirdly the case should be dismissed in
favour of the victim for the malicious prosecution. In simpler terms, Malicious
prosecution only means a wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings.

For a successful establishment of Malicious prosecution, the following has to be proved

by the Plaintiff -

● The plaintiff should have initiated the prosecution against the defendant
● The prosecution was initiated without any reasonableness and probable cause.
● The defendant acted maliciously
● The proceeding was terminated in favour of the plaintiff
● The plaintiff should have suffered damages because of the prosecution.

CASE ANALYSIS

This case, Ramlal vs Mahendra Singh ( AIR 2008 Raj 8), was decided by the honourable
Judge SHRI VINEET KOTHARI J.

Facts

Pooran Singh son of the defendant Ram Lal committed suicide by jumping into a well in
Nadbai, District Bharatpur in Rajasthan on 14.01.1973. After the procedure of
post-mortem, the body was handed over to Ram Lal for cremation on 18.01.1973. On
27.01.1973 Mr Ram Lal who was the father of the deceased filed an FIR falsely
implicating Mahendar singh and Girraj Prasad who was a medical practitioner in the
said town. Because of this they had to face three years of criminal prosecution and had
to remain in custody for the said period of three years. Later the plaintiff and his father
were acquitted by the Court.
After which, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 26.05.1977 for Malicious Prosecution
and claimed damages. While the proceeding was going on Ram Lal died so a suit was
filed against the legal representatives of Ram Lal.
 Arguments

Firstly, Parag Rastogi, counsel for the defendant first relied upon Sec 306 of the Hindu
Succession Act 1925 because the defendant Ram Lal had died.
Section 306 of the Hindu Succession Act states that 1 Demands and rights of action of
or against deceased survive to and against executor or administrator.—All demands
whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding
existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and
against his executors or administrators; except causes of action for defamation,
assault, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or other personal
injuries not causing the death of the party; and except also cases where, after the death
of the party, the relief sought could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory.

Secondly, he brought in various previous judgements, namely G Jayaprakash vs the

State of Andhra Pradesh2 and M. VErappa vs Evelyn Sequeira and ORS3.

In M Veerappa’s case, the Supreme court held that-

4
​As against the preponderant view taken by several High Courts, a Full Bench of the
Calcutta High Court alone took a contrary view in Krishna Behari Sen v. Corporation of
Calcutta (1) (supra) Maclean, C.J. Speaking for the Bench held that the words, "personal
injuries not causing the death of the party" if accorded their natural and ordinary
meaning appear to refer to physical injuries to the person which do not cause death. As
has been pointed out by Das. J in Punjabsingh v. Ramautar Singh (11) (Supra), the ratio
in Krishna Behari Sen's (1) case had not been followed subsequently by the Calcutta
High Court itself in any other case. The view taken by the Calcutta High Court found
solitary acceptance only in a decision of the Rangoon High Court in D.K. Cassim & Sons.
v. Sara Bibi ILR XIII Rangoon 385. It is therefore clear that the contrary view taken by
the Calcutta High Court is against the weight of judicial pronouncements by other High
Courts.

1
Hindu Succesion act ,1925 section 306
2
1988 AIR 506, 1988 SCR (2) 606
3
1988 UJ SC 720
4
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/512818/
 The Argument of Plaintiff

The counsel for the Plaintiff supported the impugned judgement in favour of the
plaintiff to the extent that the prosecution by defendant Ram lal of the criminal
proceedings regarding the suicide committed by his son Pooran was malicious because
he filed an FIR after many days of the death with the police of Bharatpur and also
produced false pieces of evidence to harass the accused persons for conviction.
However, after three years of trial, the court acquitted both of them. As the prosecution
was held malicious the trial court awarded the compensation to the extent of Rs 31000/-

The Argument of Defendant

The counsel Mr Rastogi on behalf of the defendant submitted that the suit for Malicious
Prosecution in Torts of Law, the following ingredients has to be proved -

1. The plaintiff has to prove that he was prosecuted by the defendant

2. The proceedings complained of termination in favour of the plaintiff if from their
nature they were capable of so terminating
3. The prosecution was initiated against him without any reasonable and probable
cause
4. It was due to a malicious intention of the defendant and not with a mere
intention of carrying the law into effect.

The defendant argued that mere assisting the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the State in a criminal trial, as a complainant, the defendant Ram Lal cannot be said to
have maliciously prosecuted the plaintiffs. According to him, there were reasons to
suspect that the accused persons were involved in the crime of murder of his son
Pooran. Merely because the plaintiffs were acquitted or discharged in a criminal trial, it
cannot be said that the prosecution was malicious on behalf of the complainant because
in such cases the prosecution cannot be said without any reasonable and probable cause.
He further submitted that the learned trial court could not have gone beyond the
pleadings of the plaintiff in this regard who had pleaded only this ground to be a ground
of malicious prosecution and still hold the prosecution in a criminal trial as malicious
prosecution. Relying on various decisions of this Court, the learned Counsel for the
defendant urged that no case of malicious prosecution was made out by the plaintiff and
therefore, the suit itself was required to be rejected. He relied on the judgments of
Brijlal and Anr. v. Premchand5 and Messrs. Trojan & Co. v. RM.N.N. Nagappa
Chettiar6.

The legal position was summarized by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Rajasthan in Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan7 as under:

In a suit for the recovery of damages for malicious prosecution mere production of the
judgment of a criminal court is not sufficient for the plaintiff to discharge the burden of
proving malice and want of reasonable and probable cause. A criminal court may either
acquit or discharge a person. There may not be sufficient ground for proceeding with a
criminal case, for the evidence adduced by the prosecution might not have been relied
upon for some reason or the other and yet the defendant might have good grounds for
launching prosecution against the plaintiff. The fact that the prosecution ended in the
discharge or acquittal of the accused does not necessarily warrant that the accusation
made was baseless to the knowledge of the prosecutor: vide Rishab Kumar v. K.C.
Sharma
(l). In a suit for malicious prosecution, it is no part of the duty of the civil court to take
into consideration all the documents submitted before the criminal court to offer
comments on the dictum of the criminal court. Its function is to consider the evidence
produced before it and then decide whether or not the plaintiff has succeeded in making
out a case against the opposite party.

5
AIR 1974 Rajasthan 124
6
AIR1953 SC 235
7
1970 RLW 201
 JUDGEMENT

The Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant
Ram Lal had maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff Mahender Singh and his father Girraj
Prasad in the criminal trial. Merely because he lodged an FIR with the Superintendent
of police in Bharatpur after recovery of the dead body of his son Pooran and pursued the
case as a complainant through his advocate before the said court, it cannot be said that
the defendant Ram Lal had any malice in this regard.
Merely because the plaintiffs came to be acquitted or discharged by the criminal court as
the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt as is required in criminal law, it
does not mean that such acquittal or discharge could necessarily boomerang upon the
defendant as a case for malicious prosecution. The burden of proof squarely lies upon
the plaintiffs to prove that the prosecution was malicious and done with the intention to
harass and defame the plaintiffs. No such case is made out in the present case by the
plaintiffs much less proved.
Finally, the court dismissed the plea of the plaintiff and the defendant and released
them from all charges.

My Conclusion

Though it was a clear cut case of Suicide, which was found by the police in the
post-mortem there was no room for any crime of murder which would have happened.
Just because of the benefit of a doubt Ram lal cannot file a suit without proper evidence
and make them suffer for three whole years.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books -

● Law of Torts - R.K Bangia

Online Journal

● www.indiakanoon.com

● www.manupatrafast.com