Internal Continuous Evaluation : Law of Torts including

MV Accident and Consumer Protection Laws II

Semester:II
(BBA.LL.B.)

NAME ANANYA CHOUDHARY

PRN NO. 20010224158

DIVISION C
BATCH 2020-25

Q2

INTRODUCTION

In the given case as a counsel to Mr.Sumit Ray I would advise him to file
for Malicious Prosecution as well as sue Ms. Sunita Singh, the Managing
Director of XYZ Pvt Ltd Co. for defemation

o Malicious prosecution means the institution, against an innocent

person, of unsuccessful criminal proceedings without reasonable and
probable cause and in a malicious spirit and not in furtherance of
justice and causing damage to the plaintiff in person, pocket or
reputation.

Following are the essentials which the plaintiff is required to prove

in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution:-

 Prosecution by the defendant

 Termination of proceedings in plaintiff’s favour
 Prosecution should have been started without any reasonable
and probable cause
 Prosecution must have been initiated with a malicious intention
 Plaintiff must suffer damage.

o Defamation is tort resulting from an injury to ones reputation. It is

the act of harming the reputation of another by making a false
statement to third person.

A defamatory statement is a statement calculated to expose a person

to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to injure him in his trade, business,
profession, calling or office, or to cause him to be shunned or avoided
in society.

There are two types of defamation-

 1. LIBEL -is a publication of a false and defamatory statement
tending to injure the reputation of another person without lawful
justification or excuse. The statement must be expressed in
some permanent form.
2. SLANDER- is a false and defamatory statement by spoken words
or gestures tending to injure the reputation of another. It is
always expressed in some temporary form.
Under the Indian Law, as per section 499 of the Indian Penal Code
both libel and slander are criminal offences.

Section 499 Defamation: Whoever, by words either spoken or intended

to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or
publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm,
the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
expected, to defame that person

Following are the essentials to constitute the tort of defamation:-

 the statement must be false and defamatory;
 the statement must refer to the plaintiff; and
 the statement must be published.

ANALYSIS

Caselaw 1

Pandit Gaya Parshad Tewari v. Sardar Bhagat Singh, (1907-08) 35 IA 189

In an action for damages for malicious prosecution, it is not in all cases

necessary to show that the defendant is the person who actually
prosecutes.

Where the defendant has given to the police a report which is false to his
knowledge, and results in a prosecution by them, and has taken a
principal part in the conduct of the case both before the police and the
Magistrate, the remedy provided by this form of action is available to an
innocent plaintiff aggrieved by an unfounded charge.

Now in the given hypothetical situation, when Ms. Sunita Singh, the
Managing Director of XYZ Pvt Ltd Co. called upon a meeting of all the
employees and accused Mr. Sumit Ray, the auditor of XYZ Pvt Ltd Co, of
pocketing all the money she publicly injured the reputation of Mr. Sumit
Ray in the estimation of right thinking members of the society, the
statement she made had no locus and was never proven in the court of
law. Furthermore, the evidences were made public because Ms. Informant
Sunita emailed them. As a consequence, it's safe to assume this is a
defamation lawsuit.

Prosecution means the setting of the machinery of law into motion

through an appeal to an authority exercising judicial powers or a person
clothed with judicial authority. It can be reasonably inferred that a person
who brings incriminating information against an individual and agrees to
give evidence in the court of law with regard to this matter has the
intention and desire to see the accused tried for the offence. Moreover,
when the circumstances are such that the knowledge of the evidence are
only with the claimant and there are no witnesses available, it is virtually
impossible for the police to exercise any independent discretion and if a
prosecution is instituted by the police, it can be inferred that the
prosecution has been indirectly initiated by the information supplied and
the active participation of the claimant.

This can be made furthere clear through the following caselaw-

Caselaw2

Hazoor Singh v Ganga Singh AIR 1973 Raj 82

The Rajasthan High Court considered a person as a prosecutor when the

defendant’s information was false in his own knowledge, brought false
evidence, tried to influence police for involving innocent person. The
police was influenced to start prosecution.

Therefore, mere supply of information on the strength of which a

prosecution is commenced by someone else must be differentiated from
instigation a prosecution. A thorough analysis of the circumstances of the
case gives the answer to the question of the prosecutor. In the given case
Ms. Sunita acted on the information given to her by an informant blindly
relying on the veracity of the claims of the informant and without
exercising due diligence in ascertaining the facts proving that Mr. Sumit
was guilty of the financial fraud which were later found to be forged.
Thus, the law places on the prosecutor the duty to ascertain the credibility
and not the truth of the information obtained from the informant. There is
no onus on the informant in ascertaining the circumstances correctly and
therefore the unreasonable mistake on the part of Ms. Sunita on alleging
that Mr. Sumit of fraud without checking the reliability of the information
makes liable for malicious prosecution.

The absence of reasonable or probable cause does not give rise to malice.
Both of them are to be proved independently although they do tend to
overlap in certain circumstances. Therefore, the malicious intent of the
defendant must be inferred from the circumstances of the case. In this
given case Mr. Sumit was acquitted by the criminal court thereby
satisfying the second element of termination of criminal proceedings in
the favor of the plaintiff. However, the act of Ms. Sunita of bringing about
a board meeting and firing Mr. Sumit while he was acquitted by the court
of law indicated that she was acting on a vengeance rather than on the
honestly of her belief in the judicial proceedings. Therefore, the honestly
of her belief in the guilt of the plaintiff can be questioned and she was
prompted by ulterior motives rather than seeking the justice when she
initiated a case of fraud against Mr. Sumit. Therefore, the essential of a
proceeding initiated with malicious intent has been satisfied.

Lastly Mr. Sumit has suffered damage to his reputation as he has been
tried for fraud and fired from XYZ Pvt Ltd. due to such proceedings. And
the costs incurred by him in defending criminal case for fraud can be
inferred to be harm to his property. Lastly the threat of imprisonment can
be inferred to be damage to a person’s being.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, Mr.Sumit Ray is entitled to bring the action of malicious

prosecution against Ms. Sunita as she relied on the information by the
informant, and she set the law in motion. She prosecuted the plaintiff
without any reasonable and probable cause. The existence of malice is
evident from the fact that should denied showing evidence to the plaintiff.
As a result, the plaintiff suffered damage in terms of loss of reputation
and the cost of litigation which he is entitled to recover. Also she
tarnished the image of Mr.Sumit Ray by public communication of
defamatory statements and hence is liable for defemation as well.

Q1
INTRODUCTION

As Mr. Tanmay’s legal advisor I would suggest them to file a suit against
Mr Raman for false imprisonment

False Imprisonment happens when a person, without any legal

authority or justification intentionally restrains the other person’s ability
to move freely.

In other words, it means total restraint of the liberty of a person for

however short a time, without lawful justification.
Wrongful restraint is stated in Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code and
wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Following are the Essentials of False Imprisonment:-

• Complete derivation of liberty

• Knowledge of restraint- This is no more a requirement.
• The detention must be unlawful

1. Complete derivation of liberty

For complete derivation of liberty, the person must not have any
reasonable means of leaving the place where he is confined in.

Thus, if one direction by one path has been closed for, he person, but
another is open there is no false imprisonment.
For example-Just like in the case of Bird V jones 1845, where-

B, Mr bird, wanted to cross a portion of a public road that had been closed
due to a boat race. Two police officers, D and E, stopped B from passing
in the direction he desired, but he was allowed to proceed in the only
other direction he could. B stayed in the same spot as before, refusing to
move in that direction. B filed a false imprisonment claim against D.

Thus, in the following case, it was held there is no false imprisonment as

partial obstruction and disturbance does not constitute to imprisonment
and Mr. Bird didn’t have complete derivation of liberty.

2. Knowledge of restraint

In the case of false imprisonment, it was a necessity that the plaintiff

should be aware of his detainment. But now it no more an essential for
the tort of false imprisonment.

For example-

In Herring v Boyle, it was held that such information is required. In that

case, a schoolmaster wrongfully refused to allow a schoolboy to go with
his mother unless the mother paid a sum allegedly owed to him; the
conversation between the mother and the schoolmaster took place in the
boy's absence, and the boy was unaware of the restraint. The refusal to
the mother in the absence of the child, and without his knowledge of the
restraint, could not be considered false imprisonment.

Thus, concluding that knowledge is essential. But this was rejected in the
House of lords and the case of Meering v. Graham White Aviation
Company Ltd 1919, was upheld, which stated that-
Knowledge of detention is not essential to prove false imprisonment but
might be relevant for the assessment of damages.

3. The detention must be unlawful

The confinement of the plaintiff must be unlawful i.e., without any lawful
justification, to constitute false imprisonment.

In other words, it must not be made in pursuance of powers vested in the

defendant by law.

For example-

In the case of Garikipati v Araza Biksham where the defendants lodged a

complaint with a police officer that the plaintiff had set fire to their
property. Earlier the plaintiff was arrested by the police on this charge,
but later he was let go as the complaint was made without an lawful
justification and resulted in the arrest of the plaintiff.

Analysis

The following Case is based on the landmark judgement of Bahner V

Marwest Hotel Co 1969

Facts-

Bahner was a German immigrant who settled in Canada. He was in a

Marwest Hotels establishment, and he and his friends had been enjoying a
bottle of wine that they hadn't done. As the establishment's waiter asked
if they had another bottle of wine, Bahner said yes. A fresh bottle was
brought to the table and opened, but they hadn't made any progress on
the second bottle during the night.
Later, at the end of the night, the waiter informed them that they would
have to finish the bottle in the next ten minutes because alcohol could not
be served after midnight. When Bahner declined to pay for the wine or
drink it, a security guard was summoned, who blocked Bahner's exit
before the cops arrived. Bahner filed a false arrest complaint. Since
Bahner may have escaped via the rabbit warren at the back of the
kitchen, the Marwest Hotel said that he had a fair means of escape.

ISSUE

 Whether escaping through the rabbit warren be fair means of

escape?
 Will the following case be constituted as false imprisonment?

HELD
The security guard's presence at the front door essentially limited
Bahner's freedom of travel, according to the court, because fleeing
through the rabbit warren did not represent a fair means of escape. The
court also found that Marwest has no legal justification for restricting
someone's rights and pressuring them to settle a debt; you can actually
sue them in contract later. As a result, Bahner's application for false
imprisonment was successful.

Now in the given hypothetical situation,

Raman and Tanmay were both finalists in the Master Singer competition,
and Raman saw Tanmay as his main competitor. Raman invited Tanmay
to his house and locked him inside his storeroom the night before the
competition's Grand Finale. Tanmay was unaware that the storeroom had
a second escape, hidden behind the cupboard. He was unsuccessful in his
attempt to crack open the front gates. Raman, on the other hand, took
home the grand prize. Tanmay was then allowed to leave later after the
competition.
The requisite essentials for a tort of False Imprisonment can be
established as explained below –

1. The plaintiff was locked inside a storeroom subsisting in the

defendant’s house. The storeroom was locked, moreover a door which
was behind the Cupboard could not be accessed by a reasonable and a
prudent man under normal circumstances and by understanding this it
can be clearly seen that there was a complete restraint on the plaintiff’s
liberty. he detention of the plaintiff was unlawful as the defendant had no
legal authority or justification, to detain my client and prima facie from
the circumstances of the case it is clear that the only intention behind the
False Imprisonment was to win the grand finale in Mr. Tanmay’s absence
and this can be no lawful justification to put a complete restraint on a
person’s liberty. Understanding the circumstances under which the
detention was undertaken clearly shows that the detention was unlawful.

Under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, any person who limits or
restricts the movement on another individual that prevents that person
from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits amounts to
Wrongful Confinement. The wronged party here may sue the defendant
under this section, and the defendant may be punished under Section 342
of the Indian Penal Code, for a term which may extend to one year, or a
fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or both.
CONCLUSION

In the following case, since Tanmay was unaware that the storeroom had
a second escape hidden behind the cupboard and escaping through the
hidden cupboard door does not constitute as reasonable means of escape.
Also, Raman had no lawful excuse to restrict Tanmay’s freedom. Mere fact
that he wanted to remove the competition isn’t lawful justification.

Thus, Tanmay can file a suit for false imprisonment against Raman
And The possible legal recourse which my client Mr. Tanmay have here is
recovering damages for False Imprisonment to or avail a remedy as
provided under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code i.e., Punishment for
wrongful confinement by filing a suit against the defendant Mr. Raman.