Skip to content


Madhu Lal Ahir Gayawal Vs. Sahai Pande Dhami - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1900)ILR27Cal532
AppellantMadhu Lal Ahir Gayawal
RespondentSahai Pande Dhami
Excerpt:
malicious prosecution - suit for damages for malicious prosecution--malice--dishonest motive--effect of bringing a charge of 'assault' for 'criminal intimidation'--damages--seasonable and probable cause--penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 351, 352, 503. - .....and it was accordingly dismissed. 3. the court of first instance found that there was criminal intimidation offered by the plaintiff to the defendant though there was no actual assault; and the munsif, being of opinion that there was no justifiable cause for the institution of the complaint by the defendant, gave the plaintiff a decree for damages.4. on appeal, the district judge apparently accepts, the finding of the munsif that there was criminal intimidation on the part of the plaintiff; and having regard to that fact, as also to the other facts to which we have already referred, has come to the conclusion that there was 'every reason for bringing a ease of assault against the plaintiff,' and therefore the latter is not entitled to any damages.5. it will be observed that.....
Judgment:

Ghose, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious, prosecution of the plaintiff in a criminal court for assault.

2. The prosecution, upon the facts found by the Judge, seems to have been the outcome of a quarrel between the plaintiff and the defendant about certain offerings which a pilgrim to Gya had made. It would appear that in the course of that quarrel there was a disturbance, and it went so far as to compel the pilgrim and his party to retire from the place, leaving the plaintiff and the defendant, and their partisans to fight out the dispute. The defendant subsequently brought a complaint against the plaintiff for assault under Section 352 of the Penal Code. That complaint, however, was not substantiated, and it was accordingly dismissed.

3. The Court of First Instance found that there was criminal intimidation offered by the plaintiff to the defendant though there was no actual assault; and the Munsif, being of opinion that there was no justifiable cause for the institution of the complaint by the defendant, gave the plaintiff a decree for damages.

4. On appeal, the District Judge apparently accepts, the finding of the Munsif that there was criminal intimidation on the part of the plaintiff; and having regard to that fact, as also to the other facts to which we have already referred, has come to the conclusion that there was 'every reason for bringing a ease of assault against the plaintiff,' and therefore the latter is not entitled to any damages.

5. It will be observed that the charge of criminal intimidation as defined in Section 503 of the Penal Code is a graver charge than that of simple assault as defined in Section 351 of that Code. In many cases of the kind, a charge of assault may be taken to be included in a charge of criminal intimidation; and if the fact be, as it seems to have been found by both the Munsif and the District Judge, that there was good cause for bringing a charge of criminal intimidation and if the defendant had brought such a charge, it would be almost impossible to say that there was any malice or dishonest motive on the part of the defendant in bringing a charge of assault against the plaintiff.

6. In this view of the matter, we think that the judgment of the learned Judge should not be interfered with in this appeal and we accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.


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