MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - JURISDICTION ISSUE

Khanchand Pokardas vs Harumal D. Varma on 20 March, 1964

Equivalent citations: (1964) 66 BOMLR 829, 1965 CriLJ 75

Bench: Tulzapurkar
Issue:

Whether the Poona Court can entertain a pauper suit to recover damages for malicious
prosecution. The Defendant in Bombay entrusted certain diamonds of the value of Rs. 15,000/-
to one Jairamdas, the brother of the Plaintiff for the purpose of sale on commission, but while
Jairamdas was travelling from Bombay to Poona his pocked was picked. A Criminal complaint
against Jairamdas and the Plaintiff (both of whom carry on business as jewellers at Poona) in the
Court of the Presidency Magistrate Bombay, charging them with the offences of criminal
misappropriation and criminal breach of trust and abetment. The service of the summons upon
the Plaintiff and his brother at Poona. Later a compromise was made between them and both the
brothers paid the defendant 15,000/-. It was found that Plaintiff was at no fault and was
malicious prosecuted.

Contention of the plaintiff: he claimed special damages amounting to Rs. 1500/- comprising of 3
items: (I) being fees paid to Advocate (ii) for travelling diet and other expenses and (iii) for
loss of business as a jeweller and further claimed Rs. 8500/- as and by way of general damages
comprised of (I) Rs. 1550/- for mental and bodily pain and (ii) Rs. 700/- for loss of reputation
and…

After setting out these particulars of damages claimed by him the plaintiff in paragraph 11 of his
plaint averred that the cause of action arose at Poona within the jurisdiction of the Poona Court
as the summons of the criminal proceedings was served upon him at Poona. In other words,
according to Mr. ., the plaintiff claimed jurisdiction in the Poona Court both on the ground that
the summons of the criminal case was served upon him in Poona and that thereby a personal
wrong had been done to him in Poona and also on the ground that a part of the cause of action
had arisen in Poona inasmuch as some part of the special damages and some part of the general
damages were suffered by him in Poona.

The court held: It is clear that a malicious prosecution is in essence of malicious abuse of the
process of the criminal court and if made at a particular place by serving that process upon the
person, who was maliciously prosecuted, the wrong could be said to have been done at the place
where the person was served with the summons.
Ram Krishna Singh v. Arjun Singh and Ors

Writ Petition No. 6487 Of 1979 | 31-10-1980

High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad

The Defendant is residing at Calcutta, where he instituted a criminal case against the Plaintiff
alleging that the Plaintiff committed an offence of robbery at Calcutta. The Plaintiff, who was
resident at Mainpuri, was arrested, in pursuance of that complaint, at Mainpuri and produced
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Plaintiff thereupon filed the instant suit for malicious
prosecution against the Petitioner.

The contention of the Petitioner was that the courts at Mainpuri had no jurisdiction to try the case
and the case could be tried only by the courts at Calcutta. Both the courts below have decided the
issue of jurisdiction and have concurrently held that in view of Section 19 of the Code of Civil
Procedure the suit filed at Mainpuri was quite competent and the civil court at Mainpuri had
jurisdiction to try the case. It is not disputed that the Plaintiff was arrested at Mainpuri and,
therefore, a very important piece of cause of action accrued at Mainpuri. Thus on a plain reading
of Section 19 the courts at Mainpuri had jurisdiction to try the suit.

Case: Gokul Das v. Baldeo Das AIR 1961 Mys

The plaintiff,who was malicious prosecuted at Bombay Court, brought the suit in Bangalore
Court. According to defendants contention the suit is to filed in Bombay Court, as the court to
issue summons was Bombay Court and the plaintiff was prosecuted there. The court stated that
: A malicious prosecution is in essence a malicious abuse of the process of the Criminal Court. If
such abuse is made of the process of a criminal Court in a particular placc by serving that process
upon the person who was maliciously prosecuted, it is clear that the wrong was done in the place
where he was so served.

Reference:
The case of Gokul Das v. Baldeo Das AIR 1961 Mys 158 and Khem Chand v. Haru Mal AIR
1965 Bom 109. In these cases it was held that the suit for malicious prosecution could be
instituted at the place where the Plaintiff was served with the summons as an accused in a
criminal case.

State of Meghalaya V Jyotsna Das, AIR 1991 Gauhati 96 wherein it was held that the
jurisdiction cannot be given restrictive meaning and it also includes the place where the effect of
the wrong done was felt; State of Maharashtra V Sarvodaya Industries, AIR 1975 Bombay
197 wherein it was held that if the wrongful act was done at one place and resultant damage
caused at another then the court has jurisdiction at later place under section 19 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, while re-defining
the contour of Article 21 of Constitution had, inter alia, held that the procedure envisaged under this
Article must be "right, just and fair" and not "arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive".

Law Commission Report:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in Babloo Chauhan @ Dabloo v. State Government of NCT
of Delhi, 247 (2018) DLT 31, while acknowledging the inadequacy of legislative framework for
providing relief to the victims of wrongful prosecution and incarceration, requested the Law
Commission of India ("Law Commission") to "undertake a comprehensive examination of the
issue..." Pursuant thereto, after extensive examination, the Law Commission submitted its
Report13 titled as, "Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal
Remedy" ("Report") to the Government of India for its consideration.