Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08th September, 2021
KIRAN MADAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nishant Solanki, Advocate.
(M: 9958165146)
Through: Mr. R.K. Lamba, Advocate with Respondent in person.
JUDGMENT
5 WITH + C.R.P. 47/2021 & CM APPL. 15082/2021 KIRAN MADAN..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nishant Solanki, Advocate.
VERSUS
RAVI MANCHANDA..... Respondent Through: Mr. R.K. Lamba, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These are two revision petitions filed challenging orders dated 15th January, 2021 passed by the ld. ADJ, Dwarka District Courts, New Delhi, by which the applications filed by the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC have been dismissed by the Trial Court.
3. Disputes arose between the parties who are closely related to each other, which have led to criminal complaints and filing of suits. The Petitioner herein i.e., Mrs. Kiran Madan is the wife of Mr. Vipin Madan, who is the cousin (Maasi’s son) of Mr. Ravi Manchanda i.e., the Respondent in C.R.P. 47/2021. Mr. Dishant Manchanda is the son of Mr. Ravi 2021:DHC:2778 Manchanda i.e., the Respondent in C.R.P. 37/2021. Disputes erupted between the Madans and the Manchandas, who were residing in the same building, owing to various issues. One of the disputes took an ugly turn, leading to the lodging of an FIR by Mrs. Kiran Madan against Mr. Ravi Manchanda and Mr. Dishant Manchanda under Sections 354, 509 and 34 of the IPC. The allegations made in the FIR were that the Respondents had made lewd remarks against her and had taken her photographs etc. Pursuant to the said FIR, the Respondents were arrested by the Police and charges were framed against them.
4. Vide final judgment dated 20th May, 2017, the Metropolitan Magistrate in the Mahila Court dealing with the said FIR acquitted both the Respondents. The findings of the Court were that the basic ingredients of the offences were not made out. In fact, the Court holds that no photographs were produced to buttress the allegations made in the FIR. Post the said acquittal, the Respondents filed two suits before the Trial Court seeking damages for malicious prosecution. In the said suits, Mrs. Kiran Madan, has filed applications seeking rejection of the plaints under Order VII Rule 11. The case of the Petitioner is that the basic ingredients of malicious prosecution, as laid down by this Court in Trilok Chand Bansal vs. Bharat Bhushan Bansal [CS (OS) 470/2016, decided on 23rd March, 2017], have not been made out and thus, the suit is liable to be rejected for lack of cause of action. The Trial Court has dismissed the applications vide orders dated 15th January, 2021 by holding as under:
5. Mr. Nishant Solanki, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, vehemently contends that the plaint lacks the basic ingredients that are mandatorily required in a suit for malicious prosecution. Ld. counsel contends that there is no malice that has been alleged by the Respondents and unless all four ingredients are satisfied, the suit cannot be maintained. He further submits that the mere fact of acquittal in the FIR would not result in the filing of the complaint being presumed to be malicious. He thus submits that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the plaints are liable to be rejected.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Lamba, ld. counsel appearing for the Respondents, submits that the Trial Court has passed a speaking order dealing with the judgments which have been cited by the Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner - Mrs. Kiran Madan has not filed only one FIR but has also filed another criminal complaint in which similar allegations were made. It is submitted that in the said criminal complaint, at the time of framing of charges itself, the Respondents were discharged by the Court. He submits that the Petitioner has been habitually making baseless allegations against the Respondents, which have resulted in enormous trauma to the Respondents and thus, the suits are not liable to be rejected.
7. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties and has perused the records. This Court is of the opinion that the question as to whether a suit for malicious prosecution would lie or not cannot always be decided at the stage of decision in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The narration in the plaints filed by the Respondents is that the Madan and Manchanda families were residing in the same building in Dwarka, which is where disputes have occurred amongst them. The civil disputes relating to nonpayment of maintenance charges, usage of lift etc. took an extremely ugly turn with the Petitioner lodging an FIR against the Respondents alleging sexual offences. The same also resulted in the Respondents being arrested by the police, though the Respondents were thereafter acquitted. In their plaints, the Respondents have clearly made the allegation that the family of the Respondents suffered huge trauma and also had to face insulting behaviour by friends and family. Their reputation was put in jeopardy and they were humiliated on many occasions.
8. Mr. Dishant Manchanda, who has done a Masters in Finance and is working in a Multi-National Company, is stated to have lost various career opportunities due to the lodging of the FIR. Accordingly, damages of Rs. 25 lakhs have been claimed by Mr. Dishant Manchanda and damages of Rs.15 lakhs have been claimed by Mr. Ravi Manchanda. The relevant extracts of the plaint in CRP 37/2021 read as under: “4. ….
Plaintiff and his father, therefore, they decided not to plead guilty and face the trial. Their faith in our judicial system also gave them strength to face the trial of the said case. …
I. That the Plaintiff and his father faced the pain of the trial more than three years and finally the truth shine in sunlight, when vide its judgment dated 20.05.2017 Ld. Trial Court of M. M. Mahila Court, Dwarka, Delhi acquitted the Plaintiff and his father from all the charges. It is needless to mention herein that in it's judgment Ld. Trial Court clearly held that the allegations made by the Defendant herein are false and frivolous and having no sanctity in law. Even in the said judgment the Ld. Trial Court clearly hold that on the day of alleged crime, which was alleged by the Defendant herein, the Plaintiff was not in the city and the Defendant herein failed to prove any single incident of stalking and alleged photography during whole the trial.
5. That due to the said false implication in the above noted case, the friends, relatives and other persons residing in the neighbourhood of the plaintiff have adversely changed their behaviour resulting in damage to the reputation of plaintiff and due to the same plaintiff got humiliated on many occasions. Moreover, the plaintiff has undergone a mental trauma during the trial of the criminal case filed by the defendant.
6. That by the aforesaid act and conduct of the defendant has caused grave damaged to the reputation of the Plaintiff and his family, which cannot be compensated in terms of the money. …”
9. The impugned orders dated 15th January, 2021 and the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC have to be viewed in light of the allegations made in the plaints. It is also relevant to point out that in the order acquitting the Respondents, the Trial Court came to the clear conclusion that there was no evidence whatsoever of any stalking or taking of photographs by the Respondents. The relevant extracts of the said order are set out below:
10. A reading of the order acquitting the Respondents, along with the contents of the plaints, would be the basis to judge as to whether the ingredients for a suit for malicious prosecution are made out. The judgment relied upon by the Petitioner herein - Trilok Chand Bansal (supra) lays down the following criteria for maintaining a suit for malicious prosecution:
11. As is clear from the above-mentioned judgment, the following four ingredients have to be proved for a tort of malicious prosecution to be successful: (a) initiation or continuation of a lawsuit; (b) lack of probable cause;
(c) malice; and
(d) favourable termination of lawsuit.
12. At the stage of an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, proof cannot be adduced and the Court would have to adjudicate this issue on the basis of the contents of the plaint. The Court, during the hearing also explored as to whether there could be a quietus to the litigation, as Mr. Vipin Madan was present in Court and Mr. Dishant Manchanda had joined virtually. However, no amicable resolution seemed possible at this stage.
13. This Court has perused the plaints, the impugned orders, as also the judgment of acquittal and is clearly of the opinion that at this stage it would not be possible to say that the plaints do not have any proof of the four elements required in a suit for malicious prosecution. The basic contentions of the Respondents are clearly contained in the plaints. The question of proof would arise only after issues are framed and the opportunity to lead evidence is given to the Respondents. The plaint is to contain the facts, which it clearly contains. The manner in which the same would be proved is up to the Respondents. This is not a case where on a plain reading of the plaints no cause of action exists for malicious prosecution, especially owing to the FIR which was lodged, the arrest of the Respondents, the subsequent acquittal and the nature of allegations in the Plaints. Thus, the plaints are not liable to be rejected in a summary manner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, the impugned orders do not warrant any interference.
14. Needless to add, this Court has not considered the merits of the allegations as to whether the ingredients for malicious prosecution have been proved or not at this stage. That would be an issue which would be considered by the Trial Court after evidence is recorded.
15. The revision petitions, along with all pending applications, are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 mw/T/MS