A Justification Behind Malicious Prosecution

A Justification Behind Malicious Prosecution

By Gaurangi KaushikAn Introduction…

Perhaps some of the most valuable and precious possessions of man are his reputation, his property, his monetary standing, his efforts and most crucially, his time. The following factors act as quintessentials in leading a mere average lifestyle, the abundance of which escalates our quality of life and absence of which diminishes it dramatically. Throughout the course of many years, one finds him or herself working endlessly towards the attainment of the aforesaid.


On a similar note, the judicial system of any country functions in and for a certain society. Due to which, judicial proceedings organically become subject to the judgement and accusations of the same civilization within which it operates. The society as a whole holds tremendous power to seize one’s reputation and goodwill in a matter of seconds. An element which takes years to build, can be demolished by the society in seconds. 


On the other hand, the judiciary as the guardian of justice, is also equipped with tortuous protocols and means which mandate one to make routine trips of the courts and lawyers. The society when coupled with the judiciary leaves no stone unturned for abandoning one from his reputation, monetary comfort, efforts and time. 


Merely carrying the law into effect often leads to such withdrawal unintentionally and whilst the judiciary may have no remedy available for the same, it does provide the citizens it protects with a tool to reversify the mal effects and practices when initiated maliciously.

 

The potential to file in a civil manner under malicious prosecution equips us all against the whims and fancies of parties that aim to dismantle our reputation, contract our financial abilities, squander our efforts and dissipate our time with no probable cause to sustain it. 


The act of maliciously prosecuting another can in no book be justified as a rightful act. Especially, when it is paired with negatively affecting mental health and leading to mental and even physical ailments and fatigue. It deprives one of his honor, economic stability, labour and hour without the intention of carrying the law into effect yet with an improper and wrongful motive. Malicious prosecution is a wrongful act in all means and senses. 


An Introduction to Malicious Prosecution 


Malicious prosecution has been defined as the malicious institution of unsuccessful criminal proceedings against another without reasonable or probable cause . In other words, malicious prosecution may be defined as a criminal judicial proceeding that is instituted without the purpose of carrying the law into effect but rather with a wrongful/improper motive and without any rightful justification or probable cause.  Malicious prosecution occurs when one party knowingly and with malicious intentions initiates a baseless litigation against another party . 

Although malicious prosecution serves as a civil remedy, it does aim to correct the wrongs initiated through a criminal proceeding. Due to its nature, filing a civil case under the tort of malicious prosecution enables the plaintiff in the present case to attain damages from the present defendant in a compensatory, punishing and exemplary manner.  


Filing a case under the tort of malicious prosecution allows the plaintiff of the present case to be compensated for the loss/suffering and mental harm caused to him or her through the plaintiff of the previous case. Despite the priceless value of one’s reputation, time and effort, such unliquidated damages bridge the gaps caused through a case undertaken maliciously and without the mere intention of carrying the law into effect. 


The Essentials of Malicious Prosecution


However, such exemplary damages are subject to five essentials, which stand mandatory in order to prove a case of malicious prosecution. It is obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to be able to adequately establish each and every essential, the failure of which will not prove a case of malicious prosecution. In other words the plaintiff of the present case has to prove the following essentials in a suit for damages for the tort of malicious prosecution. 


Firstly, the plaintiff must establish the fact that he/she stands prosecuted by the defendant of the present case. Key importance in such a statement has been given to the term “prosecuted”. Mere police proceedings for example can not be confused for prosecution. Prosecution refers to the act or process of prosecution whereby the party by whom criminal proceedings are instituted or conducted. Correspondingly, in the case of “Bolandanda Pemmayya v. Ayaradara (1966)” prosecution had been defined as to set the law in motion and the law is only set in motion by an appeal to some person clothed with judicial authority in regard to the matter in question. 


On a similar note, taking into consideration the following case of “Nagendra Nath Ray v. Basanta Das Bairagya (1929)”. The facts of the case refer to a theft that had been committed in the present defendant’s home. The defendant expressed his suspicions over the plaintiff to the police. As a result, the plaintiff of the present case was arrested on the grounds of suspicion by the defendant through the police. However, following the requirement of fundamental rights, the plaintiff of the present case was presented in front of a nearby magistrate within 24 hours. Since, the consequent police report failed to show any involvement of the plaintiff, all charges imposed on him were subsequently discharged. Upon his relief, he filed a case of malicious prosecution against the defendant of the present case i.e. the plaintiff of the previous case. However, keeping in regard that police proceedings cannot be termed to mean the same as a prosecution, the charge was not maintainable. 


Alternatively under the case of “Kapoor Chand v. Jagdish Chand (1974)” the Punjab and Haryana High Court had granted the status of prosecution to proceedings before the Boards of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines, Punjab. Hence, in simple wording, when a case of malicious prosecution was filed in regard to an uncompetent Hakim, the respondent was entitled to claim the damages. 


Secondly, upon the demonstration of the aforesaid essential, it is then crucial and equally as prominent to prove that the prosecution was instituted without any probable and reasonable cause. 


As can be seen through the factual representation of the “Abrath v. North Eastern Railway Co”, Previously person A had recovered a large sum of money from the North Eastern Railway Co in the form of unliquidated damages by proving in court a railway collision. In due course however, the railway company received information regarding the involvement of a third party who may have contributed in making the incident appear as an accident. The information received revealed that Dr. Abrath had artificially given the injuries that were proven by person A in court. Upon consultation with legal advisors, the railway company made an attempt to file for fraud. Upon the acquittal of Dr. Abrath, he initiated the action for malicious prosecution. This was not however entertained by the court of law as the North Eastern Railway Co had taken reasonable care and believed in the information received by them with integrity. 


Hence the presence of reasonable and probable cause renders it near impossible to prove the tort of malicious prosecution. Even an ounce of belief and reason behind the prosecution may create an inability to receive compensation under malicious prosecution. 


Adjacent to the other requirements, is the essential to prove that the defendant of the present case had previously acted maliciously and without the mere intention of carrying the law into effect. This prerequisite showcases the malicious intent behind the said prosecution and is therefore decisive in allowing the plaintiff of the present case to seek damages. 


By acting maliciously, there is an implication to have acted with near evil intentions or in hostility. Ideally, the law and legal platforms of such nature are to be utilized by the citizens of a given society for the primary objective of carrying the law into effect and preventing the further breach of law. However, any illegitimate motive or bad blood behind such a prosecution cannot be pardoned. 


This vital factor is a key determinant as the failure to prove malice and venom results in a failed attempt to establish malicious prosecution. A similar storyline was observed in “Kamta Prasad Gupta v National Buildings Construction Corpn. Ltd. (AIR 1992 Del. 275)”. The facts of the case represented the officer of the respondent corporation in finding certain features missing whilst preparing an audit of the stock register. Subsequently, the plaintiff found himself to be prosecuted under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he was soon acquitted. Upon his relief, the plaintiff filed a case of malicious prosecution. Yet, he failed to showcase any malicious, ill-will, bad-blood, or illegitimate motive behind the prosecution. Although a failed attempt at doing so, the respondent corporation had initiated the proceedings with the resolution of carrying the law into effect. Accordingly, no damages were awarded as malicious prosecution failed to have been proved. 


Furthermore, it is significant to validate that the proceedings terminated in the favour of the plaintiff of the present case. Malicious prosecution as a whole revolves around the major idea of wrongly being prosecuted without any justification or reasoning to do so yet rather with malice. If a prosecution results in the punishment of the plaintiff of the present case, it symbolizes one being rightly and deservingly prosecuted with a valid justification to do so. Hence, the case of malicious prosecution cannot be formed. In other words, malicious prosecution only amounts when the plaintiff of the present case was acquitted in the previous case. The failure of which defeats the entire purpose of introducing malicious prosecution as a tort. 


Nevertheless, in order to truly conceptualize the true definition of the above essential, it is chief to comprehend the definition of “termination in favour of the plaintiff”. Contrary to popular belief, a case does not conclude in favour of the plaintiff only upon the determinants of his innocence but rather on account of the absence of his guilt. Hence, it is not merely innocence which renders one free from judicial consequences, but also the absence of guilt. If the proceedings are not concluding against the plaintiff, they are said to be terminating in favour of him/her.  


In the case of “Ram Lal v. Mahender Singh (AIR 2008 Raj. 8)” the son of Ram Lal had reportedly committed suicide and his body was subsequently found in the well of a village. Following this incident, Ram Lal initiated prosecution against the respondent and his father falsely implicating their involvement with his sons death. Over the course of the prosecution, the respondent and his father were required to remain under trial for a lengthy period of over 3 annums. Upon their acquittal, the respondent and his father both filed for malicious prosecution against Ram Lal seeking damages for the suffering they had incurred over the course of these 3 years. Although, the plaintiffs of the present case of malicious prosecution failed to prove the malice and ill-will on the part of Ram Lal, had they done so, the absence of their guilt amongst the satisfaction of the remaining essentials, would have guaranteed them the damages for their suffering. 


Keeping in mind the above specification, the conclusive essential behind proving a case of malicious prosecution lies in demonstrating that the plaintiff did indeed suffer damages as a result of the prosecution. Malicious prosecution as a tort recognizes the claim of damages on the following three counts. Firstly, the damage caused to the plaintiffs reputation on account of the prosecution. Secondly, damage to the plaintiffs person due to the prosecution. Lastly, damage to the plaintiff’s property is also recognized by the tort of malicious prosecution, and the awarding of damages for the same is practiced, provided the enduring essentials are fulfilled as well. Alongside this, the court also considers the inconvenience the plaintiff was subjected to, the financial loss led by the prosecution and also the changes in the status and rank of the person being prosecuted. 


Although such harsh consequences of the malicious prosecution are not capable of being reversed completely, they can to a certain extent be reduced by claiming unliquidated damages provided by the court of law upon hearing the facts of the respective case. For example in the “Smt Manijeh v. Sohrab Pesottam Kotwal, AIR 1949 Nag 273” the Nagpur High Court had awarded five thousand Rupees as a general compensation, seventy-five rupees as special damages and specified the possible need of the defendant to pay indicative damages as well, considering the certitude that he knowingly makes erroneous assertions. Comparably, the Calcutta High Court had awarded one thousand five hundred Rupees as special damages and five thousand Rupees for the mental suffering and agony as a result of the prosecution. 


Sustaining the above mentioned five essentials guarantees a case of malicious prosecution and allows damages to be reversed to a limited extent.


An Analysis of Malicious Prosecution as a Wrongful Act


The law and order of our country stands as a guardian of the constitution and enables us as citizens to bring matters into legal light in order to ensure carrying the law into its due effect. The privilege of bringing one’s legal disputes and complications forward, is an entitlement brought to us by law. Malicious prosecution on the other hand symbolizes an abuse of privilege and an abuse towards the process of the court. This is primarily due to the reasoning that the law is intentionally sprung into motion on a criminal case with a wrongful alternative motive. 


Malicious prosecution serves to be synonymous with anything else that is disrespectful to the Indian legal system. Rights, privileges and powers are exploited for personal motives. In the hearing of such a prosecution, national legal interest, time, effort and knowledge is poured into a leaking bowl. The various efforts made by the judiciary system to provide justice on all platforms are abused and consequently squandered. 


Malicious prosecution can not be termed as a rightful act, as its sole principles are disrespectful, wasteful and unappreciative of the judiciary system that aims towards a lawful society. The involvement of personal feud and sadist satisfaction has potent repercussions which are faced by the accused of criminal charges and the legal fraternity as a whole. 


Personal fall outs may also be addressed towards the respective legal representatives provided they contain legalized aspects. However, in malicious prosecution, a case is wrongfully addressed towards a criminal charge as opposed to being rightfully dealt with with appropriate legal involvement. 


Besides the legal exploitation in a case of malicious prosecution, many personal losses also come into play consequently. Financial losses are incurred due to meeting the needs of the trials and prosecution. Additionally, expressing one’s case through a legal representative is also harsh on the pocket. An unhealthy and agonized mental state is an obvious reverberation of falsely accusing one of a criminal charge. Merely paying a sum of damages for its reversal is not sufficient to forget months and years of legal trauma caused for a wrongful motive. 


Had the above two reasonings not been enough, the reputation and rank of one is progressively diminished as a proceeding continues. It is said that a good reputation is worthier than a golden belt. Accordingly, how is it justified to demolish a reputation which took years of respectable acts, kind words and rightful deeds to build in a matter of seconds with no legally correlated fault of the plaintiff. The answer stands in bold in front of us, it is simply not. 


Another prominent factor justifying the wrongful nature of malicious prosecution is how corrupt the act is at a humanitarian level. In other words, to maliciously prosecute is opposing the principles of a good conscience. The reasoning lies in the mental, societal and financial trauma the plaintiff is put through and the misuse of the legal fraternity and resources. Such a collision and suffering is made solely to satisfy a vicious uncorrelated motive. 


All-inclusively, malicious prosecution results in the mis-use of the judiciary and its legal tools, the financial, societal and reputational loss of the plaintiff and proves to be a cynical act at the conscience level. All of the above justifications clearly showcase its nature to be wrongful and inappropriate. From an ulterior viewpoint, how can the manipulation of the judiciary, monetary, reputational and mental repercussions and a non existent moral sense be categorized as a rightful act. Malicious prosecution, in all aspects, is a wrongful act.


Case Studies and Analysis of Malicious Prosecution


Law is best understood when implemented. The purely wrongful nature of malicious prosecution can too be best understood through its implementation in courtroom cases. There exist a multitude of cases under the tort of malicious prosecution that highlight its wrongful nature and evince iit to be an unwarranted act. 


In the subsequently mentioned case studies of malicious prosecution, personal repercussions have been highlighted, yet there also exists no lacking in the legal reverberations that result out of a malevolent legal claim. Malicious prosecution involves manipulation of the judiciary which highlights the unappreciative nature of malicious prosecution. Legal tools, jurists, representatives and privileges granted through law are mis-used. Such acts are highly disrespectful towards an esteemed organ of the state, the judiciary. The same practice has been observed in the following cases. 


Shiv Shankar Patel v. Phulki Bai 


This case dates back to 2007, whereby the plaintiff had faced criminal prosecution for a period of 8 lengthy years. The reasoning behind such a prosecution was that the plaintiff had been accused of the theft of crops. The respondent however, namely Phulki Bai was acquitted upon the realisation that Phulki Bai had in fact sown the crops harvested by her and they were also returned to Phulki Bai. In conclusion, post the commencement of a trial for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff was awarded with Rupees ten-thousand. 


Upon a closer analysis of this case, it is visible that Phulki Bai, besides experiencing prosecution for eight years, also faced a lot of additional damage. Being prosecuted for a period of 8 years is not only mentally exhausting and challenging but also exhaustive of financial resources. In addition to this, one’s time and effort is constantly put to waste. Most importantly, upon being prosecuted for eight years, Phulki Bai undoubtedly experienced a degrading reputation and social standing. Elements which took years to establish, maintain and strengthen got destroyed in a few seconds on the basis of a malicious claim. It is nothing but a wrongful act to have left so many repercussions with an ill-willed case. 


State of Tripura v. Shri Hardhan Choudhary 


The above mentioned case dates back to 2006. Here the forest officials filed a case against the plaintiff for felling trees with lacking evidence. Eventually, upon prosecution the plaintiff was acquitted. Subsequently was also awarded Rupees twenty-five thousand for malicious prosecution.


Here it may clearly be witnessed that the plaintiff suffered in person, reputation and even in monetary terms. Such acquisitions which take not longer than a few seconds to make, impact the lives of the receiving end to a much larger extent. Making such a malicious accusation in the first place is a wrongful act on its own, and its impressions prove it to be one further. 


Het Ram v. Madan Gupta 


Under the Het Ram v. Madan Gupta case of 2007, the plaintiff was wrongfully and without any reasonable justification charged by the defendant for setting his house on fire. Upon the absence of guilt on the part of the plaintiff, he filed under malicious prosecution and obtained a total sum of Rupees fifty-five thousand. 


The footprints and aftermath of such bad blooded claims are often underestimated. Such a claim as in the case of Het Ram v. Madan Gupta led to mental agony, loss of business due to the loss of reputation and pricey litigation expenses. Although fifty-five thousand Rupees may reduce the burden to a considerable extent, such a remedy unfortunately does not take away from the fact that the plaintiff suffered immense damage in a variety of mannerisms. 


A Sharma v. P. Bewa 


The plaintiff in the following case was wrongly accused for outraging the modesty of a woman on unfolded grounds in the year of 2007. Upon his prosecution, he was subsequently acquitted by the court and the defendant was held liable by the court to pay compensation once the case for malicious prosecution was held by the plaintiff. 


It takes a lifetime to grow a reputation and to nurture it through our everyday actions on a day to day basis. It is highly unfortunate to see such malicious claims derogate the same reputation on the basis of a few baseless wordings. It is nothing but a wrongful act to not only shred the reputation of one but also to cause financial loss and emotional trauma.


In an overall view, we are able to witness a similar pattern in Bandi v. Ramadin, Ram Lal v. Mahendra Singh & Ors and Soora Kulasekara Chetty And Another v. Tholasingam Chetty. To deprive one of his cherished resources merely for an ulterior improper motive cannot be termed as a rightful act. As proven by the above mentioned cases, malicious prosecution stands in the pure definition of a wrongful act. 


In all of the above cases it can be clearly witnessed that the tort of malicious prosecution aims to right a wrong, and bring the plaintiff into the same condition prior to the prosecution. Tort law aims to do this through the means of unliquidated damages that may be claimed by the plaintiff upon initiating a case. Had malicious prosecution not been a wrongful act, the law would not provide for its citizens a mannerism in which they may be awarded compensation for their suffering.


Conclusion


Upon taking into account the above reasonings, when the questions appears before our eyes asking us to classify malicious prosecution as a rightful or wrongful act, the answer stands clear. Had malicious prosecution not been a wrongful act, our respectable legal system would not provide for its remedies in the form of unliquidated damages. Tort law is aimed at correcting a wrong through its exemplary, compensatory and punishing compensation. It is due to this reasoning, that malicious prosecution reserves a spot for itself as a wrong to be corrected through the law of torts. 


Yet supposing we wish to blatantly ignore the presence of malicious prosecution as a tort, and rather consider the justifications that symbolize it to be one- malicious prosecution still provides us with a multitude of reasons that justify it to be a wrongful act. Had initiating a legal proceeding on another party with baseless, malicious and improper motives not being enough of a reason, malicious prosecution also manipulates our entrusted judiciary system. 


Whenever a case/judicial proceeding is initiated by one party with a wrongful motive against another, without probable cause to sustain the case, the judicial tools, fraternity, privileges and resources are exploited and disrespected. An institution aimed at developing a lawful society is not one to be tampered with for personal barbarous means. This justification alone distances malicious prosecution from being a rightful act. In other words, this reasoning is competent enough to labelise malicious prosecution as a wrongful act. 


In addition, malicious prosecution is wrong at a conscience level as well. Putting through our fellow citizens through mental agony, financial crunches and reducing their reputation and standing in the society whilst at the same time disrespecting an independent organ of the state for personal, wrongful, malicious and improper motives without any base, reasoning or probable cause is an act distinguished as opposing the principles of a good conscience. 


The ill-effects of malicious prosecution do not end there, in fact the most rigorous of impacts is felt by those who have been wrongfully prosecuted. Their prosecution results in deteriorating their mental health, diminishing their financial resources, wasting their efforts, unproductive utlisiation of their time and a decreased status or rank in the society. All for the mere malicious actions of the defendant. 


In conclusion, malicious prosecution has only negatively impactful repercussions. In the legal fraternity, an act is to be considered rightful only when it is undertaken with a proper reasoning, with an attempt to right a wrong, and to carry the law into effect. Such actions are undertaken in order to prevent the breach of law in the near future. On the other hand, malicious prosecution does not sit right with that criteria. It represents a malicious, selfish and immature action undertaken at the expense of a good conscience, mental health, monetary resources, time, effort and the judiciary at large. Following this reasoning, in no book could maliciously prosecuting another be termed as a rightful or justified act. As its name itself suggests, malicious prosecution is malicious, hostile, bitter, vengeful, spiteful and above all a wrongful act.  



















BIBLIOGRAPHY 

India, legal Service. “Malicious Prosecution under Law of Tort.” Legal Service India, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l337-Malicious-Prosecution-under-Law-of-Tort.html. 

“Malicious Prosecution.” Legal Service India – Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2434-malicious-prosecution.html. 

“Prosecution.”Merriam-Webster,Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecution. 

India, legal Service. Malicious Prosecution, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1857/Malicious-Prosecution.html. 

India, legal Service. “Malicious Prosecution under Law of Tort.” Legal Service India, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l337-Malicious-Prosecution-under-Law-of-Tort.html#:~:text=Conclusion-,Malicious%20prosecution%20is%20an%20abuse%20of%20the%20process%20of%20the,decided%20in%20the%20plaintiff’s%20favour. 

SHIV SHANKAR PATEL Vs. PHULKI BAI, http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=027002962000. 

“Malicious Prosecution.” Findlaw, 6 Dec. 2018, http://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/malicious-prosecution.html#:~:text=Malicious%20prosecution%20occurs%20when%20one,action%20is%20essentially%20the%20same. 

An Introduction…

Perhaps some of the most valuable and precious possessions of man are his reputation, his property, his monetary standing, his efforts and most crucially, his time. The following factors act as quintessentials in leading a mere average lifestyle, the abundance of which escalates our quality of life and absence of which diminishes it dramatically. Throughout the course of many years, one finds him or herself working endlessly towards the attainment of the aforesaid.


On a similar note, the judicial system of any country functions in and for a certain society. Due to which, judicial proceedings organically become subject to the judgement and accusations of the same civilization within which it operates. The society as a whole holds tremendous power to seize one’s reputation and goodwill in a matter of seconds. An element which takes years to build, can be demolished by the society in seconds. 


On the other hand, the judiciary as the guardian of justice, is also equipped with tortuous protocols and means which mandate one to make routine trips of the courts and lawyers. The society when coupled with the judiciary leaves no stone unturned for abandoning one from his reputation, monetary comfort, efforts and time. 


Merely carrying the law into effect often leads to such withdrawal unintentionally and whilst the judiciary may have no remedy available for the same, it does provide the citizens it protects with a tool to reversify the mal effects and practices when initiated maliciously.

 

The potential to file in a civil manner under malicious prosecution equips us all against the whims and fancies of parties that aim to dismantle our reputation, contract our financial abilities, squander our efforts and dissipate our time with no probable cause to sustain it. 


The act of maliciously prosecuting another can in no book be justified as a rightful act. Especially, when it is paired with negatively affecting mental health and leading to mental and even physical ailments and fatigue. It deprives one of his honor, economic stability, labour and hour without the intention of carrying the law into effect yet with an improper and wrongful motive. Malicious prosecution is a wrongful act in all means and senses. 


An Introduction to Malicious Prosecution 


Malicious prosecution has been defined as the malicious institution of unsuccessful criminal proceedings against another without reasonable or probable cause . In other words, malicious prosecution may be defined as a criminal judicial proceeding that is instituted without the purpose of carrying the law into effect but rather with a wrongful/improper motive and without any rightful justification or probable cause.  Malicious prosecution occurs when one party knowingly and with malicious intentions initiates a baseless litigation against another party . 

Although malicious prosecution serves as a civil remedy, it does aim to correct the wrongs initiated through a criminal proceeding. Due to its nature, filing a civil case under the tort of malicious prosecution enables the plaintiff in the present case to attain damages from the present defendant in a compensatory, punishing and exemplary manner.  


Filing a case under the tort of malicious prosecution allows the plaintiff of the present case to be compensated for the loss/suffering and mental harm caused to him or her through the plaintiff of the previous case. Despite the priceless value of one’s reputation, time and effort, such unliquidated damages bridge the gaps caused through a case undertaken maliciously and without the mere intention of carrying the law into effect. 


The Essentials of Malicious Prosecution


However, such exemplary damages are subject to five essentials, which stand mandatory in order to prove a case of malicious prosecution. It is obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to be able to adequately establish each and every essential, the failure of which will not prove a case of malicious prosecution. In other words the plaintiff of the present case has to prove the following essentials in a suit for damages for the tort of malicious prosecution. 


Firstly, the plaintiff must establish the fact that he/she stands prosecuted by the defendant of the present case. Key importance in such a statement has been given to the term “prosecuted”. Mere police proceedings for example can not be confused for prosecution. Prosecution refers to the act or process of prosecution whereby the party by whom criminal proceedings are instituted or conducted. Correspondingly, in the case of “Bolandanda Pemmayya v. Ayaradara (1966)” prosecution had been defined as to set the law in motion and the law is only set in motion by an appeal to some person clothed with judicial authority in regard to the matter in question. 


On a similar note, taking into consideration the following case of “Nagendra Nath Ray v. Basanta Das Bairagya (1929)”. The facts of the case refer to a theft that had been committed in the present defendant’s home. The defendant expressed his suspicions over the plaintiff to the police. As a result, the plaintiff of the present case was arrested on the grounds of suspicion by the defendant through the police. However, following the requirement of fundamental rights, the plaintiff of the present case was presented in front of a nearby magistrate within 24 hours. Since, the consequent police report failed to show any involvement of the plaintiff, all charges imposed on him were subsequently discharged. Upon his relief, he filed a case of malicious prosecution against the defendant of the present case i.e. the plaintiff of the previous case. However, keeping in regard that police proceedings cannot be termed to mean the same as a prosecution, the charge was not maintainable. 


Alternatively under the case of “Kapoor Chand v. Jagdish Chand (1974)” the Punjab and Haryana High Court had granted the status of prosecution to proceedings before the Boards of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines, Punjab. Hence, in simple wording, when a case of malicious prosecution was filed in regard to an uncompetent Hakim, the respondent was entitled to claim the damages. 


Secondly, upon the demonstration of the aforesaid essential, it is then crucial and equally as prominent to prove that the prosecution was instituted without any probable and reasonable cause. 


As can be seen through the factual representation of the “Abrath v. North Eastern Railway Co”, Previously person A had recovered a large sum of money from the North Eastern Railway Co in the form of unliquidated damages by proving in court a railway collision. In due course however, the railway company received information regarding the involvement of a third party who may have contributed in making the incident appear as an accident. The information received revealed that Dr. Abrath had artificially given the injuries that were proven by person A in court. Upon consultation with legal advisors, the railway company made an attempt to file for fraud. Upon the acquittal of Dr. Abrath, he initiated the action for malicious prosecution. This was not however entertained by the court of law as the North Eastern Railway Co had taken reasonable care and believed in the information received by them with integrity. 


Hence the presence of reasonable and probable cause renders it near impossible to prove the tort of malicious prosecution. Even an ounce of belief and reason behind the prosecution may create an inability to receive compensation under malicious prosecution. 


Adjacent to the other requirements, is the essential to prove that the defendant of the present case had previously acted maliciously and without the mere intention of carrying the law into effect. This prerequisite showcases the malicious intent behind the said prosecution and is therefore decisive in allowing the plaintiff of the present case to seek damages. 


By acting maliciously, there is an implication to have acted with near evil intentions or in hostility. Ideally, the law and legal platforms of such nature are to be utilized by the citizens of a given society for the primary objective of carrying the law into effect and preventing the further breach of law. However, any illegitimate motive or bad blood behind such a prosecution cannot be pardoned. 


This vital factor is a key determinant as the failure to prove malice and venom results in a failed attempt to establish malicious prosecution. A similar storyline was observed in “Kamta Prasad Gupta v National Buildings Construction Corpn. Ltd. (AIR 1992 Del. 275)”. The facts of the case represented the officer of the respondent corporation in finding certain features missing whilst preparing an audit of the stock register. Subsequently, the plaintiff found himself to be prosecuted under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he was soon acquitted. Upon his relief, the plaintiff filed a case of malicious prosecution. Yet, he failed to showcase any malicious, ill-will, bad-blood, or illegitimate motive behind the prosecution. Although a failed attempt at doing so, the respondent corporation had initiated the proceedings with the resolution of carrying the law into effect. Accordingly, no damages were awarded as malicious prosecution failed to have been proved. 


Furthermore, it is significant to validate that the proceedings terminated in the favour of the plaintiff of the present case. Malicious prosecution as a whole revolves around the major idea of wrongly being prosecuted without any justification or reasoning to do so yet rather with malice. If a prosecution results in the punishment of the plaintiff of the present case, it symbolizes one being rightly and deservingly prosecuted with a valid justification to do so. Hence, the case of malicious prosecution cannot be formed. In other words, malicious prosecution only amounts when the plaintiff of the present case was acquitted in the previous case. The failure of which defeats the entire purpose of introducing malicious prosecution as a tort. 


Nevertheless, in order to truly conceptualize the true definition of the above essential, it is chief to comprehend the definition of “termination in favour of the plaintiff”. Contrary to popular belief, a case does not conclude in favour of the plaintiff only upon the determinants of his innocence but rather on account of the absence of his guilt. Hence, it is not merely innocence which renders one free from judicial consequences, but also the absence of guilt. If the proceedings are not concluding against the plaintiff, they are said to be terminating in favour of him/her.  


In the case of “Ram Lal v. Mahender Singh (AIR 2008 Raj. 8)” the son of Ram Lal had reportedly committed suicide and his body was subsequently found in the well of a village. Following this incident, Ram Lal initiated prosecution against the respondent and his father falsely implicating their involvement with his sons death. Over the course of the prosecution, the respondent and his father were required to remain under trial for a lengthy period of over 3 annums. Upon their acquittal, the respondent and his father both filed for malicious prosecution against Ram Lal seeking damages for the suffering they had incurred over the course of these 3 years. Although, the plaintiffs of the present case of malicious prosecution failed to prove the malice and ill-will on the part of Ram Lal, had they done so, the absence of their guilt amongst the satisfaction of the remaining essentials, would have guaranteed them the damages for their suffering. 


Keeping in mind the above specification, the conclusive essential behind proving a case of malicious prosecution lies in demonstrating that the plaintiff did indeed suffer damages as a result of the prosecution. Malicious prosecution as a tort recognizes the claim of damages on the following three counts. Firstly, the damage caused to the plaintiffs reputation on account of the prosecution. Secondly, damage to the plaintiffs person due to the prosecution. Lastly, damage to the plaintiff’s property is also recognized by the tort of malicious prosecution, and the awarding of damages for the same is practiced, provided the enduring essentials are fulfilled as well. Alongside this, the court also considers the inconvenience the plaintiff was subjected to, the financial loss led by the prosecution and also the changes in the status and rank of the person being prosecuted. 


Although such harsh consequences of the malicious prosecution are not capable of being reversed completely, they can to a certain extent be reduced by claiming unliquidated damages provided by the court of law upon hearing the facts of the respective case. For example in the “Smt Manijeh v. Sohrab Pesottam Kotwal, AIR 1949 Nag 273” the Nagpur High Court had awarded five thousand Rupees as a general compensation, seventy-five rupees as special damages and specified the possible need of the defendant to pay indicative damages as well, considering the certitude that he knowingly makes erroneous assertions. Comparably, the Calcutta High Court had awarded one thousand five hundred Rupees as special damages and five thousand Rupees for the mental suffering and agony as a result of the prosecution. 


Sustaining the above mentioned five essentials guarantees a case of malicious prosecution and allows damages to be reversed to a limited extent.


An Analysis of Malicious Prosecution as a Wrongful Act


The law and order of our country stands as a guardian of the constitution and enables us as citizens to bring matters into legal light in order to ensure carrying the law into its due effect. The privilege of bringing one’s legal disputes and complications forward, is an entitlement brought to us by law. Malicious prosecution on the other hand symbolizes an abuse of privilege and an abuse towards the process of the court. This is primarily due to the reasoning that the law is intentionally sprung into motion on a criminal case with a wrongful alternative motive. 


Malicious prosecution serves to be synonymous with anything else that is disrespectful to the Indian legal system. Rights, privileges and powers are exploited for personal motives. In the hearing of such a prosecution, national legal interest, time, effort and knowledge is poured into a leaking bowl. The various efforts made by the judiciary system to provide justice on all platforms are abused and consequently squandered. 


Malicious prosecution can not be termed as a rightful act, as its sole principles are disrespectful, wasteful and unappreciative of the judiciary system that aims towards a lawful society. The involvement of personal feud and sadist satisfaction has potent repercussions which are faced by the accused of criminal charges and the legal fraternity as a whole. 


Personal fall outs may also be addressed towards the respective legal representatives provided they contain legalized aspects. However, in malicious prosecution, a case is wrongfully addressed towards a criminal charge as opposed to being rightfully dealt with with appropriate legal involvement. 


Besides the legal exploitation in a case of malicious prosecution, many personal losses also come into play consequently. Financial losses are incurred due to meeting the needs of the trials and prosecution. Additionally, expressing one’s case through a legal representative is also harsh on the pocket. An unhealthy and agonized mental state is an obvious reverberation of falsely accusing one of a criminal charge. Merely paying a sum of damages for its reversal is not sufficient to forget months and years of legal trauma caused for a wrongful motive. 


Had the above two reasonings not been enough, the reputation and rank of one is progressively diminished as a proceeding continues. It is said that a good reputation is worthier than a golden belt. Accordingly, how is it justified to demolish a reputation which took years of respectable acts, kind words and rightful deeds to build in a matter of seconds with no legally correlated fault of the plaintiff. The answer stands in bold in front of us, it is simply not. 


Another prominent factor justifying the wrongful nature of malicious prosecution is how corrupt the act is at a humanitarian level. In other words, to maliciously prosecute is opposing the principles of a good conscience. The reasoning lies in the mental, societal and financial trauma the plaintiff is put through and the misuse of the legal fraternity and resources. Such a collision and suffering is made solely to satisfy a vicious uncorrelated motive. 


All-inclusively, malicious prosecution results in the mis-use of the judiciary and its legal tools, the financial, societal and reputational loss of the plaintiff and proves to be a cynical act at the conscience level. All of the above justifications clearly showcase its nature to be wrongful and inappropriate. From an ulterior viewpoint, how can the manipulation of the judiciary, monetary, reputational and mental repercussions and a non existent moral sense be categorized as a rightful act. Malicious prosecution, in all aspects, is a wrongful act.


Case Studies and Analysis of Malicious Prosecution


Law is best understood when implemented. The purely wrongful nature of malicious prosecution can too be best understood through its implementation in courtroom cases. There exist a multitude of cases under the tort of malicious prosecution that highlight its wrongful nature and evince iit to be an unwarranted act. 


In the subsequently mentioned case studies of malicious prosecution, personal repercussions have been highlighted, yet there also exists no lacking in the legal reverberations that result out of a malevolent legal claim. Malicious prosecution involves manipulation of the judiciary which highlights the unappreciative nature of malicious prosecution. Legal tools, jurists, representatives and privileges granted through law are mis-used. Such acts are highly disrespectful towards an esteemed organ of the state, the judiciary. The same practice has been observed in the following cases. 


Shiv Shankar Patel v. Phulki Bai 


This case dates back to 2007, whereby the plaintiff had faced criminal prosecution for a period of 8 lengthy years. The reasoning behind such a prosecution was that the plaintiff had been accused of the theft of crops. The respondent however, namely Phulki Bai was acquitted upon the realisation that Phulki Bai had in fact sown the crops harvested by her and they were also returned to Phulki Bai. In conclusion, post the commencement of a trial for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff was awarded with Rupees ten-thousand. 


Upon a closer analysis of this case, it is visible that Phulki Bai, besides experiencing prosecution for eight years, also faced a lot of additional damage. Being prosecuted for a period of 8 years is not only mentally exhausting and challenging but also exhaustive of financial resources. In addition to this, one’s time and effort is constantly put to waste. Most importantly, upon being prosecuted for eight years, Phulki Bai undoubtedly experienced a degrading reputation and social standing. Elements which took years to establish, maintain and strengthen got destroyed in a few seconds on the basis of a malicious claim. It is nothing but a wrongful act to have left so many repercussions with an ill-willed case. 


State of Tripura v. Shri Hardhan Choudhary 


The above mentioned case dates back to 2006. Here the forest officials filed a case against the plaintiff for felling trees with lacking evidence. Eventually, upon prosecution the plaintiff was acquitted. Subsequently was also awarded Rupees twenty-five thousand for malicious prosecution.


Here it may clearly be witnessed that the plaintiff suffered in person, reputation and even in monetary terms. Such acquisitions which take not longer than a few seconds to make, impact the lives of the receiving end to a much larger extent. Making such a malicious accusation in the first place is a wrongful act on its own, and its impressions prove it to be one further. 


Het Ram v. Madan Gupta 


Under the Het Ram v. Madan Gupta case of 2007, the plaintiff was wrongfully and without any reasonable justification charged by the defendant for setting his house on fire. Upon the absence of guilt on the part of the plaintiff, he filed under malicious prosecution and obtained a total sum of Rupees fifty-five thousand. 


The footprints and aftermath of such bad blooded claims are often underestimated. Such a claim as in the case of Het Ram v. Madan Gupta led to mental agony, loss of business due to the loss of reputation and pricey litigation expenses. Although fifty-five thousand Rupees may reduce the burden to a considerable extent, such a remedy unfortunately does not take away from the fact that the plaintiff suffered immense damage in a variety of mannerisms. 


A Sharma v. P. Bewa 


The plaintiff in the following case was wrongly accused for outraging the modesty of a woman on unfolded grounds in the year of 2007. Upon his prosecution, he was subsequently acquitted by the court and the defendant was held liable by the court to pay compensation once the case for malicious prosecution was held by the plaintiff. 


It takes a lifetime to grow a reputation and to nurture it through our everyday actions on a day to day basis. It is highly unfortunate to see such malicious claims derogate the same reputation on the basis of a few baseless wordings. It is nothing but a wrongful act to not only shred the reputation of one but also to cause financial loss and emotional trauma.


In an overall view, we are able to witness a similar pattern in Bandi v. Ramadin, Ram Lal v. Mahendra Singh & Ors and Soora Kulasekara Chetty And Another v. Tholasingam Chetty. To deprive one of his cherished resources merely for an ulterior improper motive cannot be termed as a rightful act. As proven by the above mentioned cases, malicious prosecution stands in the pure definition of a wrongful act. 


In all of the above cases it can be clearly witnessed that the tort of malicious prosecution aims to right a wrong, and bring the plaintiff into the same condition prior to the prosecution. Tort law aims to do this through the means of unliquidated damages that may be claimed by the plaintiff upon initiating a case. Had malicious prosecution not been a wrongful act, the law would not provide for its citizens a mannerism in which they may be awarded compensation for their suffering.


Conclusion


Upon taking into account the above reasonings, when the questions appears before our eyes asking us to classify malicious prosecution as a rightful or wrongful act, the answer stands clear. Had malicious prosecution not been a wrongful act, our respectable legal system would not provide for its remedies in the form of unliquidated damages. Tort law is aimed at correcting a wrong through its exemplary, compensatory and punishing compensation. It is due to this reasoning, that malicious prosecution reserves a spot for itself as a wrong to be corrected through the law of torts. 


Yet supposing we wish to blatantly ignore the presence of malicious prosecution as a tort, and rather consider the justifications that symbolize it to be one- malicious prosecution still provides us with a multitude of reasons that justify it to be a wrongful act. Had initiating a legal proceeding on another party with baseless, malicious and improper motives not being enough of a reason, malicious prosecution also manipulates our entrusted judiciary system. 


Whenever a case/judicial proceeding is initiated by one party with a wrongful motive against another, without probable cause to sustain the case, the judicial tools, fraternity, privileges and resources are exploited and disrespected. An institution aimed at developing a lawful society is not one to be tampered with for personal barbarous means. This justification alone distances malicious prosecution from being a rightful act. In other words, this reasoning is competent enough to labelise malicious prosecution as a wrongful act. 


In addition, malicious prosecution is wrong at a conscience level as well. Putting through our fellow citizens through mental agony, financial crunches and reducing their reputation and standing in the society whilst at the same time disrespecting an independent organ of the state for personal, wrongful, malicious and improper motives without any base, reasoning or probable cause is an act distinguished as opposing the principles of a good conscience. 


The ill-effects of malicious prosecution do not end there, in fact the most rigorous of impacts is felt by those who have been wrongfully prosecuted. Their prosecution results in deteriorating their mental health, diminishing their financial resources, wasting their efforts, unproductive utlisiation of their time and a decreased status or rank in the society. All for the mere malicious actions of the defendant. 


In conclusion, malicious prosecution has only negatively impactful repercussions. In the legal fraternity, an act is to be considered rightful only when it is undertaken with a proper reasoning, with an attempt to right a wrong, and to carry the law into effect. Such actions are undertaken in order to prevent the breach of law in the near future. On the other hand, malicious prosecution does not sit right with that criteria. It represents a malicious, selfish and immature action undertaken at the expense of a good conscience, mental health, monetary resources, time, effort and the judiciary at large. Following this reasoning, in no book could maliciously prosecuting another be termed as a rightful or justified act. As its name itself suggests, malicious prosecution is malicious, hostile, bitter, vengeful, spiteful and above all a wrongful act.  



















BIBLIOGRAPHY 

India, legal Service. “Malicious Prosecution under Law of Tort.” Legal Service India, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l337-Malicious-Prosecution-under-Law-of-Tort.html. 

“Malicious Prosecution.” Legal Service India – Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2434-malicious-prosecution.html. 

“Prosecution.”Merriam-Webster,Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecution. 

India, legal Service. Malicious Prosecution, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1857/Malicious-Prosecution.html. 

India, legal Service. “Malicious Prosecution under Law of Tort.” Legal Service India, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l337-Malicious-Prosecution-under-Law-of-Tort.html#:~:text=Conclusion-,Malicious%20prosecution%20is%20an%20abuse%20of%20the%20process%20of%20the,decided%20in%20the%20plaintiff’s%20favour. 

SHIV SHANKAR PATEL Vs. PHULKI BAI, http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=027002962000. 

“Malicious Prosecution.” Findlaw, 6 Dec. 2018, http://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/malicious-prosecution.html#:~:text=Malicious%20prosecution%20occurs%20when%20one,action%20is%20essentially%20the%20same.