← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/889/2012dismissed

Raunak Ram v. Inder Singh And Others

2016-03-14Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain4 pages

-1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 14.3.2016.

Raunak Ram ........Appellant

Versus

Inder Singh Sekhon and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Appellant in person.

Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

**** SABINA, J.

Appellant had filed suit for recovery of ` 10,00,000/- on account of damages for malicious prosecution. Case of the appellant-plaintiff, in brief, was that he was appointed as a Manager with the Society in the year 1968. Services of the appellant were terminated by the President of the Society. In view of the decision given by the Arbitrator in arbitration proceedings, appellant was ordered to be reinstated in service with all benefits by the managing committee and a resolution to this effect was passed on 24.12.1992 and appellant joined his duty on 26.12.1992. However, in the year 1992, defendants No. 4 and 5 in connivance with the Chairman tampered with the proceedings of the society and order dated 23.2.1993 was passed for cancellation of the resolution dated 24.12.1992. Defendant No. 4 got registered a false FIR No. 67 dated 21.6.1993 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) at Police Station

-2Kotwali Sangrur against the appellant. Appellant was acquitted by the Court vide judgment dated 2.12.2002. Due to the registration of the criminal case, appellant had suffered mental torture and harassment. Hence, suit for recovery of damages was filed by the appellant.

Case of defendants No. 1 to 5, in brief, was that the defendants had been unnecessarily dragged in litigation. In fact, services of the appellant had been terminated on account of embezzlement of funds of the society. Arbitrator had passed an award against the appellant. In fact, the resolution dated 24.12.1992 was bogus and was later cancelled and the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Sangrur dated 23.2.1993 was legal and valid. The suit filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 23.2.1993 was dismissed and the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were upheld by the Appellate Court.

Defendant No. 6 was proceeded ex parte.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Trial Court:- "1.

Whether the plaintiff was booked in a false case FIR No. 67 dated 21.6.93, U/s 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC ? OPP 2.

If issue No. 1 is proved, then who were held responsible for registration of false case against the plaintiff? OPP 3.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages, if so to what extent? OPP 4.

Whether the plaintiff has unnecessarily dragged the

-3defendants into uncalled litigation, if so? OPD 5.

Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs? OPD 6.

Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands ? OPD 7.

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 8.

Whether the suit is not hit by Section 79 of Punjab State Co-Operative Societies Act for want of notice? OPD 9.

Whether notice u/s 80 CPC is defective, if so its effect? OPD 10.

Relief."

Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant vide judgment/decree dated 4.6.2008. The said judgment and decree were set aside in appeal filed by the appellant and the First Appellate Court vide judgment/decree dated 9.6.2011 decreed the suit of the appellant and ordered that the appellant was entitled to recover ` 1,00,000/- as compensation from defendant No. 4. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

I have heard the appellant, who is present in person, and the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that RSA no. 3616 of 2011 filed by defendant No. 4 Jagdish Sahai challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.6.2011 passed by the First Appellate Court, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

-41.6.2012.

Admittedly, FIR No. 67 dated 21.6.1993 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC was registered against the appellant at Police Station Kotwali Sangrur at the instance of defendant No. 4. Exhibit P-95 is the judgment dated 2.12.2002 passed by the Trial Court in the criminal case whereby appellant was ordered to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. The learned First Appellate Court while assessing the quantum of damages has taken in consideration the fact that, although, the criminal case remained pending for about 08 years but from Exhibit P-11 to Exhibit P-41, it was evident that the appellant had tried to stall the proceedings for almost five years. Charges were framed on 27.2.1999 whereas challan was presented before the Court on 14.10.1994.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned First Appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant was liable to be compensated to the tune of ` 1,00,000/- by defendant No. 4 as the complaint had been filed against the appellant by defendant No. 4 without any basis with the police. It has transpired during the course of arguments that the appellant has already received the amount of ` 1,00,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no substantial question of law arises in this case warranting interference by this Court.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE March 14, 2016 Gurpreet