Malicious Prosecution Suit Requires Examination Of Evidence, Cannot Be Decided At Preliminary Stage: Madhya Pradesh High Court

While upholding the Trial Court's decision, the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the question of whether a suit for malicious prosecution is maintainable or not cannot be decided at a preliminary stage by way of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as it requires a thorough examination of evidence.A single judge bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed, “In my considered opinion while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the aforesaid question being raised by way of application, cannot be considered which clearly requires evidence.”The present Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC was preferred by the defendants No. 2 and 3/petitioners challenging the order passed by Civil Judge whereby, trial Court had dismissed the application of petitioners preferred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC with the observation that the grounds raised in the application, require evidence and cannot be decided at the time of consideration of application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.As per the factual matrix of the case, FIR was lodged against respondent No. 1 and three other persons and upon challenge made by them to the said FIR, it was quashed only in relation to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. After quashing of FIR, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for compensation alleging malicious prosecution against the petitioners/defendants.The counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of Madras High Court in A.N. Shanmugam and anr. Vs. G. Saravanan wherein it was held that a suit for compensation on the ground of malicious prosecution cannot be filed against the respondent/plaintiff only on the ground of quashment of FIR by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. therefore, it was contended that the civil suit filed for compensation on the ground of malicious prosecution is not maintainable and trial Court did not take into consideration this aspect, thus, committed illegality in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, filed by the petitioners.On the contrary, the counsel for respondent no. 1 supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the civil revision.The Court referring to a judgement of Calcutta High Court in C.M.Agarwalla Vs. Halar Salt & Chemical Works & Ors reiterated the essential elements in a cause of action for malicious prosecution:that the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant that the prosecution terminated in his favour, if from their nature they were capable of such termination that there was no reasonable and probable cause for launching such prosecution that the prosecution was malicious, i.e. it was done with ulteror motive and not with the intent of carrying the law into effect.While referring to the case relied upon by the petitioners, the Court said, “Perusal of decision in the case of A.N. Shanmugam (supra) shows that in this case, criminal case was not even disposed off and suit for compensation was filed, hence, the same is distinguishable and does not provide any help to the petitioners.”Thus, the Court dismissed the present civil revision.Case Title: Dineshchandra Shrivastava And Others Versus Smt. Anuradha Saxena And Others, Civil Revision No. 731 Of 2018Click Here To Read/Download OrderAdvocate for Petitioner: Advocate Amit LahotiAdvocate for Respondent No. 1: Advocate Anchit Jain Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 62

Malicious Prosecution Suit Requires Examination Of Evidence, Cannot Be Decided At Preliminary Stage: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anukriti Mishra