Authored By: Shadab Khan
Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sh. Deepak Rathaur & Anr vs Sh. Shashi Bhushan Lal Dass on 23 September 2016
CASE NO.: Regular Second Appeal No. 1/2016
APPELLANT
DEEPAK RATHAUR & ANR.
RESPONDENT
SH. SHASHI BHUSHAN LAL DASS
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 23/09/2016
BENCH: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Valmiki J. Mehta
CITATION: 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5319
FACTS OF THE CASE
On 27.04.2004, respondent Shashi Bhushan Lal Dass lodged an FIR under Sections 308/325/34 IPC. He alleged that while he was sitting in a park, an altercation began with two persons (Suraj Bhan and Satbir). They allegedly returned with weapons and assaulted him. After that two more persons Kanshi Ram (plaintiff no.2) and his son Deepak Rathaur (plaintiff no.1) allegedly joined the assault. Criminal proceedings were initiated. After full trial, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) on 06.08.2007 acquitted Kanshi Ram and Deepak, noting that they had been falsely implicated due to prior enmity. However, co-accused Suraj Bhan and Satbir were convicted under Section 325/34 IPC. Relying on this acquittal, Kanshi Ram and Deepak filed a civil suit in 2008 seeking ₹3,00,000 damages from Shashi Bhushan for malicious prosecution and defamation.
ISSUES:
- Whether on account of the appellants/plaintiffs being acquitted in the criminal case this by itself can show that there is malicious prosecution of the appellants/plaintiffs by the respondent/defendant?
- Whether findings of the criminal court (acquittal) are binding on the civil court in a subsequent suit for damages?
LOWER COURT DECISIONS:
The dispute was first adjudicated by the Trial Court, which framed two issues, whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages of ₹3,00,000. The court held that the plaintiffs indeed had a cause of action because they were acquitted “honourably” by the Additional Sessions Judge on 06.08.2007 without any adverse remarks. It reasoned that the initiation of a criminal case is a grave matter carrying social stigma, and once the accused are exonerated without benefit of doubt, they must be deemed entitled to vindicate their dignity through a suit for malicious prosecution. Reliance was placed on the criminal court’s findings that Kanshi Ram and his son Deepak Rathaur were “falsely introduced” into the quarrel due to pre-existing hostility, thus establishing that their acquittal was not a technical one but an “honourable acquittal.” On this basis, the Trial Court decreed damages of ₹1,00,000, and emphasizes that the plaintiffs were respectable persons whose reputations had been tarnished.
However, on appeal, the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge) reversed this decree and dismissed the suit. This court took a stricter view of the requirements of malicious prosecution. It reiterated the well-settled law, as explained in Raja Brija Sunder Dev v. Ram Dev Dass[1], that the plaintiff must prove both malice and want of reasonable and probable cause. Applying these principles, the appellate court noted that the complainant had suffered genuine injuries and two co-accused were convicted, this demonstrates that the FIR was not groundless. As the plaintiffs had neither pleaded nor proved absence of reasonable/probable cause or presence of malice, which are essential elements of the tort. This rendered the Trial Court’s decree unsustainable. Accordingly, the award of damages was set aside and the suit dismissed.
ARGUMENTS BY BOTH THE PARTIES
- ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
The appellants/plaintiffs, Deepak Rathaur and Kanshi Ram, contended that the FIR lodged against them was false and malicious, motivated solely by personal enmity arising out of eviction litigation pending between the parties. They maintained that they were not involved in the incident of 27.04.2004 and were deliberately dragged into the criminal case to harass and intimidate them.
They emphasized that the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), in the criminal trial, had categorically observed that they were falsely implicated by the complainant. Their acquittal, therefore, was not a mere acquittal on benefit of doubt but an “honourable acquittal” based on clear findings of false implication.
The appellants further argued that by lodging such a false FIR, the respondent had defamed them, damaged their reputation, and caused immense humiliation in society. They stressed that criminal prosecution carries severe social consequences, and once it is shown to be false, the complainant must be held accountable for the loss of dignity suffered by the accused.
To reinforce their stand, the appellants cited the Delhi High Court ruling in Rizwan Shah v. Shweta Joshi[2], in which it was held that civil courts are entitled to look into the findings of criminal courts while deciding whether malicious prosecution is made out.
- ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Shashi Bhushan Lal Dass, maintained that his complaint was genuine. He himself had suffered assault, sustained injuries, and there were eyewitnesses who supported his version of the incident. The FIR, therefore, was not false or malicious but based on facts known to him at the time.
He argued that once the complaint was lodged, the matter was taken over by the State machinery. In such circumstances, it could not be said that he had “maliciously prosecuted” the appellants, since he merely provided information about an offence that did occur.
The respondent further stressed that acquittal does not automatically imply malice. The law requires strict proof that the prosecution was instituted without reasonable or probable cause and with a malicious motive, and the appellants had failed to establish either of these essential ingredients.
In support of his position, he relied on Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra[3], where the Supreme Court held that findings of a criminal court are not binding on civil proceedings, except to show that the prosecution terminated in favour of the accused.
RULE OF LAW
- Malicious prosecution requires proof of five essential elements
Courts have consistently held that to sustain an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove:
- institution of proceedings by the defendant;
- termination of such proceedings in favour of the plaintiff;
- absence of reasonable and probable cause;
- presence of malice; and
- damages suffered.
This test was reiterated in Raja Brija Sunder Dev v. Ram Dev Dass[4] and has become the settled position in Indian tort law. The Delhi High Court in this very case applied the same five-fold test.
- Acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive proof of malicious prosecution
Acquittal only proves that the proceedings terminated in favour of the plaintiff. It does not, by itself, establish absence of reasonable cause or malice. In Suparti v. Shamshuddin[5], the Allahabad High Court clarified that while criminal judgments are conclusive for showing termination in the plaintiff’s favour, they do not prove malice or want of reasonable cause.
- Findings of criminal court are not binding on civil courts
The Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra[6], categorically held that findings recorded in a criminal trial are not binding in civil proceedings, except for the limited purpose of showing termination.
- Burden of proof lies squarely on plaintiff
The onus to establish absence of reasonable/probable cause and presence of malice rests entirely on the plaintiff.
COURT’S HOLDING
The Delhi High Court, by its judgment dated 23 September 2016, dismissed the Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellants and upheld the decision of the First Appellate Court. Justice Valmiki J. Mehta held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 CPC, since the appellate court had correctly reversed the trial court’s decree. The Court emphasized that the appellants had failed both in their pleadings and evidence to establish that the FIR had been lodged without reasonable and probable cause, which is a sine qua non for a claim of malicious prosecution. It reiterated that mere acquittal in a criminal trial cannot by itself give rise to civil liability in damages for malicious prosecution or defamation, as acquittal only satisfies the requirement of termination in favour of the plaintiff but does not prove malice or want of cause. In light of this deficiency, the High Court concluded that the suit was legally unsustainable, and the appeal deserved dismissal.
COURT’S REASONING
The Delhi High Court undertook a detailed examination of the law governing malicious prosecution and its application to the present facts. On the issue of acquittal, the Court clarified that acquittal alone cannot be treated as sufficient proof of malicious prosecution. The court ruled that the absence of reasonable and probable cause and presence of malice must be strictly established. In the present case, the plaintiffs had neither pleaded nor adduced any specific evidence to show that the FIR was lodged without reasonable grounds, and thus their claim is not maintainable.
The High Court invoked the authoritative ruling of the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra, which laid down that findings recorded in criminal trials are not binding in subsequent civil proceedings, except to demonstrate that the prosecution ended in favour of the accused. Civil courts must independently assess whether malice and want of reasonable cause existed, and cannot simply import the conclusions of a criminal judgment.
On the plea of damage to reputation, the Court noted that while the plaintiffs alleged defamation, humiliation, and social stigma, these consequences flow from any criminal trial and cannot translate into civil liability unless the prosecution is proven to have been maliciously motivated and causeless. Since such proof was lacking, the claim of reputational harm stood on weak ground.
Finally, the Court relied on West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray[7], which reaffirmed that even if malice is present, no liability arises if there existed reasonable and probable cause to launch proceedings. Malice in law does not simply mean personal hostility or enmity, it denotes an improper or indirect motive divorced from a desire to secure justice. Thus, unless both malice and want of cause co-exist, no action for malicious prosecution can be maintained. Applying these principles, the High Court concluded that the appellants’ case was legally unsustainable.
CONCLUSION
This case is a reminder that not every acquittal turns into a victory for damages. The Delhi High Court stressed that while being dragged into a criminal case is deeply painful and damaging to one’s reputation, the law only steps in when the complaint was clearly baseless and filed with a hidden agenda. Simply being found “not guilty” isn’t enough, the person suing must show that the complaint was made without any real reason and out of malice. Here, Deepak Rathaur and Kanshi Ram couldn’t prove that. The Court pointed out that people must feel free to report crimes they genuinely believe have happened, otherwise fear of being sued would silence victims. At the same time, the law also protects individuals from false cases, but only when the strict requirements are met. In striking this balance, the judgment sends a clear message: honourable acquittal restores dignity, but compensation for malicious prosecution demands more than just an acquittal, it requires proof of malice and absence of cause.
Reference(S):
[1] Raja Brija Sunder Dev v. Ram Dev Dass, AIR 1944 PC 1
[2] Rizwan Shah v. Shweta Joshi , 2012 (2) ILR (Del) 2005,
[3] Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra, (2009) 13 SCC 729
[4] Raja Brija Sunder Dev v. Ram Dev Dass, AIR 1944 PC 1
[5] Suparti v. Shamshuddin, AIR 1928 All 337
[6] Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra (2009) 13 SCC 729
[7] West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray, AIR 2007 SC 976
