Badwali Kothi, Teh. Baswa, Distt. Dausa Raj. ----Appellants-Plaintiffs vs Kaluram S/o Prabhati Lal, Lalsot Road, In Front Of Anan Girls

----Appellants-Plaintiffs Versus Kaluram S/o Prabhati Lal, Lalsot Road, In Front Of Anan Girls School, Dausa, Distt. Dausa Raj. ----Respondent-Defendant For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Umesh Vyas, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devendra Sharma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Bal Ram Vashisth, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 28/07/2025 Judgment The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in civil regular appeal No.20/2008 whereby the first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008 passed by Civil Judge (2 of 4) [CSA-115/2013] (Senior Division), Bandikui, District Dausa (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit No.10/2002 by which the plaintiffs’ suit for compensation of Rs. 48,850/- for malicious prosecution has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for compensation of Rs. 48,850/- for malicious prosecution mentioning therein that the plaintiffs are reputed persons in the society. The plaintiff No.1 stood retired from the post of senior clerk in the Excise Department while the plaintiff No.5 is doing medical business in Garh Renoli, Tehsil Sikrai. The plaintiff No.5 was married to defendant’s daughter Lalita on 13.07.1994 according to Hindu tradition. Out of their wedlock, a daughter was born, who was physically handicapped, therefore Lalita used to remain unhappy. On 11.07.1996 she took mercury tablets, as a result of which, she died during the treatment. The plaintiff No.5 lodged a report of the said incident at Police Station-Bandikui. At the time of post mortem report, the defendant stated that he had no doubt on the in laws of Lalita but later on with mala fide intention, he lodged a written report contending false facts on

22.07.1996 against the plaintiffs. As a result of which, the plaintiffs had to incur expenses for conducting the trial of the case. Ultimately the plaintiff No.5-Kamalkant was exonerated and others were also acquitted. Defendant filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that he had not lodged the written report with any mala fide intention. So, the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed (3 of 4) [CSA-115/2013] On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k oknhx.k okni= ds iSjk uEcj&13 esa of.kZr [kpZ ,oa ekufld o ‘’kkjhfjd d"V ckcr dqy jkf’k 48]850@& izfroknh i{k }kjk >waBh fjiksVZ o QkStnkjh eqdnek djk;s tkus ls mlls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k ;g okni= fel tksbUMj vkWQ ikVhZt ,oa feyl tksbUMj vkWQ dkt vkWQ ,D’ku ds dkj.k pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA 3- vuqrks"k\” To prove their case, the plaintiffs got examined PW-1 Raghunath Prasad, PW-2 Jagdish Prasad, PW-3 Kalyan Sahay, PW- 4 Basantilal, PW-5 Chajulal and PW-6 Chiranjilal and got exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Kaluram, DW-2 Kalyan, DW-3 Triveni, DW-4 Nemichand and DW-5 Laluram. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs challenged the said judgment and decree dated

30.07.2008 passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.01.2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court have committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that the defendant lodged a false report against the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had to face trial. They incurred expenses for engaging an advocate and valuable time of the plaintiffs was also consumed. So, the judgments and decree (4 of 4) [CSA-115/2013] passed by both the courts below be set aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs because there was no mala fide intention on the part of the defendant. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs as well as counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned judgments and decree passed by the courts below. For the purpose of getting compensation in relation to malicious prosecution, it is necessarily required to be established that FIR was lodged without justified and plausible reasons and on the basis of false averments and false evidence is produced in the court, but to establish the aforesaid facts, the plaintiffs did not produce any cogent evidence. Therefore, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court did not commit any error while dismissing the suit as also the appeal. So, no ground is made out to admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Gourav/57 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J