Skip to content


Narasinga Row Vs. Muthaya Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1902)12MLJ389
AppellantNarasinga Row
RespondentMuthaya Pillai
Excerpt:
- 1. we think the decree of the appellate court should be reversed.2. the only person who can be sued in an action for malicious prosecution is the person who prosecutes. in this case though the 1st defendant may have instituted criminal proceedings before the police, he certainly did not prosecute the plaintiff. he merely gave information to the police, and the police after investigation appear to have thought fit to prosecute the plaintiff. the 1st defendant is not responsible for their act, and no action lies against him for malicious prosecution (see judgment in s.a. no. 805 see 12 m.l.j. 349.3. we must reverse the decree of the subordinate judge and restore that of the additional district munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate court.
Judgment:

1. We think the decree of the appellate Court should be reversed.

2. The only person who can be sued in an action for malicious prosecution is the person who prosecutes. In this case though the 1st defendant may have instituted criminal proceedings before the police, he certainly did not prosecute the plaintiff. He merely gave information to the police, and the police after investigation appear to have thought fit to prosecute the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is not responsible for their act, and no action lies against him for malicious prosecution (see judgment in S.A. No. 805 See 12 M.L.J. 349.

3. We must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the Additional District Munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //