Kiran Madan v. Dishant Manchanda
(2021) 283 DLT 677
In the High Court of Delhi
CRP 37/2021 and CMA 13987/2021
Before Justice Pratibha M. Singh
Decided on September 08, 2021

Relevancy of the case: Maintainability of a suit for malicious prosecution filed against a false FIR for lewd remarks and capturing photographs

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 354, 509, 34)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioner’s husband and the respondent’s father are cousins. Both the families live in the same building.
• One of the disputes between them took an ugly turn. This led to the petitioner filing an FIR against the respondent and his father.
• The petitioner alleged that the respondents made lewd remarks against her and took her photographs. Subsequently, the police arrested the respondents.
• After the trial, the Metropolitan Magistrate in the Mahila Court acquitted both the respondents because the essential ingredients of the offences were not made out.
• After the acquittal, the respondents filed two suits before the Trial Court seeking damages for malicious prosecution.
• The petitioner has now filed applications seeking rejection of the plaints under Order VII Rule 11.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the respondents’ plaint lacks the essential ingredients required in a suit for malicious prosecution.
• The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that the mere fact of acquittal in the FIR would not result in the filing of the complaint being presumed to be malicious.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that the Trial Court has passed a speaking order dealing with the judgments cited by the petitioner.

Opinion of the Bench

• Whether a suit for malicious prosecution would lie can not always be decided at the stage of a decision in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
• The trial court concluded that there was no evidence of stalking or capturing of photographs.
• At this stage, it is not possible to say that the plaints do not have any proof of the four elements required in a suit for malicious prosecution.

Final Decision

• The bench dismissed the revision petitions along with all pending applications.