GROUP CODE:
BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT, YAMUNANAGAR
CIVIL PETITION NUMBER:1234 OF 2016
Ramesh & other .…..Plaintiffs
V.
Harish Yadav and other ...…Defendant
Counsel for the Plaintiffs Manveen Dhanjal
[Type text]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
PAGE. NO
1.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
3
2.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
4
3.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
5
4.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
6
5.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
7-16
6.
PRAYER CLAUSE
17
S.NO
2
[Type text]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED:
Paras Diwan, Modern Hindu Law, Allahabad Law Agency, 14th Ed Paras Diwan, Law of Marriage and Divorce, Universal Law Publications, 5th Ed
CASE LAWS:
ONLINE SOURCES:
www.indiankanoon.org www.manupatra.co.in www.legalservicesindia.com www.legalindia.com
STATEMENT OF FACTS
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the facts of the case are as follows:
3
[Type text]
That Ramesh Kumar and Rajan Mehta are both Human Rights activists staying in
a village in Yamunanagar. That on 21.12.2015 at about 7 pm the plaintiffs were taking their evening walk and on their way saw a dead body of a girl lying near the road. The Plaintiffs
immediately reported about the incident to the Police Station of Yamunanagar. That the plaintiffs held many rallies and had also filed writs against the Police
Department of Yamunanagar and also the defendant. That the investigation was started by the investigation officer and on 25.12.2015 the defendant arrested the plaintiffs on the charge of murder of the girl whose
dead body was found by the plaintiffs. That the Defendant had personal knowledge about the innocence of both the Plaintiffs but because of grudges against the Plaintiffs the defendant wanted to
teach a lesson by falsely implicating the two. That the Plaintiffs immediately got bail by the Session’s Court. On filing of the Challan under section 173 of Cr. PC the Session’s Judge discharged both the accused because no relevant evidence was placed on record by Investigating
Officer against the two. That after getting discharged by the Sessions Court the Plaintiffs were seen with suspicious eyes by the society and also had to suffer social boycott. The marriage of the plaintiffs also broke because of the false allegations even though they were discharged. It also had a direct impact on their businesses.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
4
[Type text]
WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 19 AND 80 OF CPC?
WHETHER THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DUE TO MALICIOUS PROSECUTION APPLY OR NOT?
WHETHER OR NOT DAMAGES HAVE BEEN CAUSED TO THE PLAINTIFFS DUE TO DEFAMATION?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
5
[Type text]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 19 and 80(2) OF CPC? It is most humbly submitted that the suit is maintainable under section 19 and 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as a wrong has been committed against the Plaintiffs and they are entitled for compensation. It is pertinent to mention here that the Plaintiffs were falsely implicated in the murder of a girl and were later on discharged by the Sessions Court as they were unable to provide sufficient evidence. It is also essential to bring to light before this Hon’ble Court that the defendant knew about the innocence of the Plaintiffs but because of personal grudges against the two the defendant lead the case with malice.
6
[Type text]
Because of this malicious prosecution the Plaintiffs have suffered damages in their personal as well as professional lives. It is important to bring to record of this Hon’ble Court that the malicious prosecution against the Plaintiffs was done by the defendant in his official capacity as SHO of Police, Yamunagar and is a government officer. Therefore he is liable under section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and requests the Court to serve due notice upon the Defendants to show cause why they are not liable. Under Section 19 of CPC the case is maintainable and reads as following: Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable: Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said courts. Section 80 of CPC, 1908 says (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-s. (2), no suit shall be instituted against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of
(a) In the case of a suit against the Central Government except where it relates to a railway, a Secretary to the Government; (b) In the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway. General Manager of that Railway; (bb) In the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorized by that Government in this behalf; (c) In the case of a suit against any other State Government a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the District: and, in the case of public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the
7
[Type text]
plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. (2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the court without serving any notice as required by subsection (1); but the court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit: Provided that the court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1). The expression “any act to be done by such public officer in his official capacity” takes within its sweep acts as also illegal omission. Likewise, it also covers past as well as future acts .All acts done or which could have been done under the color or guise by an officer in the ordinary course of his official duties would be included therein.1 If the allegations in the plaint relate to an act which was purported to be done by a public officer in his official capacity means that the said act must be such that it could be done ordinarily by a person in the ordinary course of his official duties.2 In the case of Amalgamated Electricity co. (Belagaum) Ltd. v Municipal committee Ajmer held that “Official Capacity does not cover acts outside the sphere of his duties. There must be something in the very nature of the act complained of which attaches to the official character of the person doing it.3”
1 Samanthalal Koti v. Pothuri Subbiah AIR 1918 Mad 62 2 Ibid 3 AIR 1969 SC 227 8
[Type text]
In the case of State of A.P v. Gundugola Venkata4 it was held that “the main objective of this is to prevent any failure or miscarriage of injustice in urgent cases. It is the urgency and immediate relief which would weigh with the court while dealing with a prayer to dispense with the requirement of a notice and not the merits of the case. Subsection (2) however, is enacted in such a way that in this type of case, the court will not have any authority to grant a relief, interim or otherwise, unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to the government to show cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit.” As per Section 80 (2) of CPC the Plaintiffs have suffered damages and are in need of urgent and immediate relief by the Court. The malicious prosecution by the Defendant which was committed during his official capacity has not only affected the reputation of the Plaintiffs but has also caused damages to the married lives leading to divorce and losses to their respective businesses. Thus, the Court should serve notice upon the Defendant to show cause and also grant immediate relief to the Plaintiffs.
WHETHER THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DUE TO MALICIOUS PROSECUTION APPLICABLE OR NOT? It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the defendant is liable for Malicious Prosecution since a Criminal Case of Murder was registered against the Plaintiffs who were innocent. Secondly, the Plaintiffs had been acquitted as there was no sufficient evidence to prove them guilty. And lastly, the Defendant had false implicated the Plaintiifs in his official capacity. It
4 AIR 1965 SC 11 9
[Type text]
is pertinent to mention here that the Defendant had personal grudges against the Plaintiffs who had filed writs against the Defendant and also held rallies. According to HOLT C.J.’ s classic analysis in Savile v. Robert5 there could be three sort of damages any one of which could be sufficient to support any action of malicious prosecution. 1) The damage to a man’s fame as where the matter whereof he is accused is scandalous 2) The damage done to a person as where man is put to a danger of losing his life, limb or liberty 3) The damage to a man’s property as where is forced to expend money in necessary charges, to acquit himself of the crime of which he is accused. The damage must also be the reasonable and probable results of malicious prosecution and not too remote. In assessing damage the court to some extent would have to consider: 1) The nature of the offence the plaintiff was charged of 2) The inconvenience to which the plaintiff was charged to 3) Monetary loss and 4) The status and prosecution of the person prosecuted In the case of Girija Prasad v Uma Shankar Pathak6 the facts were as follows: The plaintiff was a practicing advocate at Panna in M.P. he was also a Jan Sangh leader and had started an agitation on the question of food scarcity in the city and one Jan Sangh worker had gone to a hunger strike. On Jan 2 1965 Girija Singh a sub inspector was deputed outside the collectorate to control the crowd that had collected there to support the agitation. Then there were some bullet shots made from the revolver of the sub inspector. He stated that while he was grappling with some person who was assaulting him the revolver got fired mistakingly. On that date Girija Singh had lodged an FIR stating that he was assaulted by some person. His watch snatched and also the plaintiff Uma Shankar Pathak was present at the scene and was instigating the crowd against him. The case was investigated and the plaintiff was arrested on 15th January and released on bail on 18th January. He was finally acquitted on June 30th 1965. The plaintiff then sued 4 persons for malicious prosecution, the sub inspector Girija Prasad who lodged the F.I.R., the S.H.O. of that area who entertained the report and two other persons involved with the 5 (1899) 1 Raym 374 6 A.I.R 1973 M.P. 79 10
[Type text]
case. It was found by the M.P. High court that the report prepared by Girija Prasad was false and at that relevant time the plaintiff was not present there but was appearing infront of a civil judge Justice Verma. Eventually Girija Prasad was held for malicious prosecution and others acquitted of the charge and not held liable for malicious prosecution. Similarly, in the case of Vishweshwar Shankarrao Deshmukh and Anr v. Narayan Vithoba Patil7 The plaintiff was the Sarpanch of the village Shirputi in the year 1980 and the defendant no. 1 was in the service as a Gram sewak under the Zila Parishad and the defendant no.2 was a teacher in a school run by the Zila Parishad. The plaintiff contended that he made several reports against the defendants for their misconduct. The report was made against defendant no.1 for his misbehavior, defalcation and forgery of accounts and also against defendant no.2 for his absence from duties and other irregularities. It is contended that both the defendants then hatched a conspiracy to involve the plaintiff in a criminal conspiracy and such that the defendant no.1 had lodged an F.I.R. with the police that was assaulted by the plaintiff while he was discharging his duties. On the basis of the F.I.R and investigation done by the police, criminal proceedings were launched against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was acquitted of the charges against him. It is contended that on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the defendant no.1, plaintiff was arrested but the police and the criminal proceeding against him was with malicious intention on the part of the defendants. The prosecution was launched without any reasonable cause and due to the false prosecution, there was a loss to his prestige and reputation and his status was lowered down in the society being a Sarpanch and a politician. The court decided that the plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted by the defendants without any reasonable and probable cause, and therefore they are liable to pay damages worth Rs.12,500.00 to the plaintiff.
7 2005(2)BomCR491 11
[Type text]
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced the respondent requests this Hon’ble court to adjudge and declare:
That the petition for Divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act may not be granted in favor of the Petitioner. 12
[Type text]
That the Respondent also prays that the marriage be solved by this Court through the process of mediation and suitable maintenance may also be granted to the Respondent.
The Court may pass any other order or decree as it may seem fit and in favor of justice.
All of which is respectfully affirmed and submitted. Counsel for plaintiffs Team code:
13
