1

District-Hailakandi
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, HAILAKANDI.
Present- N.S. Deori,
B.Sc., LL.B., AJS.
Civil Judge, Hailakandi.
Title Suit decided No. 01/14.
DECIDED ON THE 26th DAY (Friday) OF February, 2016.
1. Ashok Kr. Singha,
S/o. Lt. Gulam Cha Singha.
2. Ajit Kumar Singha.
S/o. Lt. Gulam Cha Singha.
3. Amit Kumar Singha.
S/o. Ashok Kumar Singha.
4. Sahadeb Singha.
S/o. Gopi Mohan Singha.
5. Shyamal Singha.
S/o. Nanda Kumar Singha.
All of Vill. Bijli Kuchi (Gaglacherra Grant).
P.O.: Zafirbond, P.O.: Lala, Dist.: Hailakandi.
…….…………………………………………………Plaintiffs.
-Versus-
Manager, Rajib Das.
Gaglacherra T. Estate.
P.O.: Zafirbond.
P.S.: Lala, Dist.: Hailakandi.
………………………………………………………..Defendant.
This suit is coming on for final hearing on 18-02-16 in presence of:
Kamrul Islam Choudhury, Advocate.………..…………...…for the Plaintiff.
S.S. Dutta, Advocate …….…………………..………….….for the defendants.
And having stood for consideration to this day, this court has delivered
the following Judgment:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
This is a suit for compensation on malicious prosecution to the
tune of Rs. 2, 53,300/- against the defendant.
 2

1. The plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that:-The Plaintiffs/petitioners are

the resident of above locality who are poor farmers and labourers. The
Govt. of Assam has given land ceiling certificate to the 20 Nos. of
petitioners out of which the plaintiff are some of the beneficiaries who
have been possessing of their respective shares of the land as allotted
by the Govt. The plaintiffs cultivated Jatropha, input meant for Bio-
Diesel production. On the relevant day the Garden authority by
unlawful way kept confined the plaintiffs who were clearing bushes,
shrubs etc. from the scheduled land. On the plea of cutting the plants,
the defendant informed the police by lodging an FIR on 18/4/07, the
Lala police and registered a Lala P.S. Case No. 55/07 vide G.R. Case
no. 221/07. Subsequently, Police charge sheeted the case & in course
of trial the plaintiff’s petitioners faced the trial. Offences were explained
U/s. 143/447/427 I.P.C. and finally, the prosecution has failed to
establish case against the accused persons and acquitted for the failure
to bring home the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. According to
the plaintiffs, the defendant lodged an FIR maliciously due to which
they are made to suffer and caused immense loss to them. Hence, the
plaintiffs suit against the defendant.
2. In the written statement, the defendant stated that the plaintiffs
might have ceiling certificates but their own land was not demarcated.
They had no knowledge about their land and thus, the plaintiffs
illegally encroached upon the land of the dependant for wrongful gain.
The plaintiff are having their own houses in the village Lala and on the
plea of getting allotment of land from the govt. they tried to occupy
and intrude upon some garden land for which they did not have any
right over the said land. There was no Jotropha cultivation over the
land which is claimed by the plaintiffs rather there was tea plantation
over the said land. From the record of map maintained by the A.S.O.,
 3

Lala it is clear that land of question is a garden land and there were tea
bushes over the same. The plaintiffs have no case at all and the suit
for compensation is liable to be rejected in limine. The suit is vexatious,
unfounded and imaginary. The plaintiff’s suit has no cause of action
for compensation.
3. Based on their pleadings and after hearing both sides, the
following issues were framed :
1. Weather there is any cause of action for the suit?
2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner?
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the land in question is a garden land covering tea
plantation etc. over the same?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree of
compensation amounting to Rs. 2,55,300.00 (Rupees Two Lakh
Fifty Five Thousand & three Hundred)only?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle to get a decree as prayed for?
7. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitle to?
4. In support of respect of their pleadings, the plaintiff side
adduced only 2 (Two) witnesses, namely, Ashok Kumar Singha (P.W.-
1), Sahadeb Singha as P.W.-2 with some documentary testimonies,
whereas; the defendant side adduce one of the witness namely Rajib
Das as D.W.-1
DISCUSSION, DECISION & REASONS THEREOF:
5. As to the issue of cause of action and maintainability of the plaintiff
suit, i.e. Issue Nos.-1 & 2, it has come to surface that the defendant
lodged an FIR on 18-04-07 stating that one Sri Phuleswar Singha
alongwith 10-12 labours encroached their Tea Garden and illegally cut
down their Tea bushes in section-18 of their Garden. The police of the
concerned police station came to the place of occurrence and arrested
 4

them. After investigation the case was charge-sheeted against them.

Aftermath of trial process, the accused persons were acquitted. The
position of the plaintiffs are lowered down in the society and caused
irreparable loss to them and as such, claimed compensation which is
denied by the defendants. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I find the
existence of cause of action for adjudication of the case of the plaintiffs.
The provision under Section-9 of CPC is widely construed which engulfs
the suit for compensation and as such, plaintiff suit is found
maintainable in the present form and manner. Accordingly, the Issue No.1
& 2 are decided in affirmatives.
6. As to the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties (Issue No. 3),
the defendant pleaded that the plaintiffs’ suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties but failed to plead specifically by adducing evidence.
Moreover, the plaintiffs impleaded the defendant Sri Rajib Das,
Manager of Gatachera Tea Estate who had filed an FIR against the
plaintiffs. Thus, I find the plaintiff suit cannot be said to be bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, the present Issue is
answered in negative.
8. Issue No. 4, i.e. Whether the land in question is a garden land
covering tea plantation etc. over the same? It’s worth discussing the
evidence of P.Ws. on the point of ownership in this issue. In their
evidence, they stated that the Govt. of Assam has given land ceiling
certificate to the 20 Nos. of petitioners out of which the plaintiffs are
some of the beneficiaries who have been in the possession of their
respective shares of the land as allotted by the Govt. On their
respective share they have cultivated Jatropha, (Bio-Diesel production).
Now the question crops up, had there been such cultivation what
prompted them to clear the same. Thus, it apparent that they are
taking the false plea for wrongful gain. Moreover, it has been admitted
that their land was demarcated. By the competent authority on the
 5

otherhand, it has come to light from the evidence that there were Tea
bushes planted by the plaintiff Garden authorities. Police recovered
1200 Nos. cut Tea bushes from the place of occurrence which is
evident from Seizure list i.e. Ext.-1 in GR Case No. 221/07. There is no
evidence that those Tea bushes were not planted by the plaintiffs. On
the relevant day of occurrence, the Tea Garden apprehended/Gheraod
the plaintiffs while cutting down the Tea bushes in their planted
Garden and later on police arrested them. Situated thus, it can safely
be concluded that the land in question is a garden land covering tea
plantation etc. over the same. Accordingly, the present issue is decided
in affirmative and against the plaintiff.
7. As regards the Compensation for malicious prosecution i.e. issue
No. 5; it's pertinent to state that the term 'Malice' and its ordinary
meaning is the wish, desire or intention to hurt. In a suit for malicious

prosecution in order to succeed the plaintiff must proved that following

conditions: (1) that the criminal proceedings were instituted by the
defendants; (2) that in doing so the defendants acted without any
reasonable and probable cause; (3) that the defendants acted maliciously;
(4) that the criminal proceedings terminated in favour of the plaintiff in
which he is acquittal or discharge and the defendant became
unsuccessful. Therefore, in order to succeed in an action for malicious
prosecution, the plaintiff has to prove that the prosecution ended in his
favour and the defendants had acted without any reasonable and
probable cause and was actuated by malice in lunching the criminal
prosecution.
3. From the evidence of Ashok Kumar Singha (P.W.-1) and Sahadeb
Singha (P.W.-2) it transpires that the Govt. of Assam has given land
ceiling certificate to the 20 Nos. of petitioners out of which the
plaintiffs are some of the beneficiaries who have been in the
 6

possession of their respective shares of the land as allotted by the

Govt. On their respective share they have cultivated Jatropha, (Bio-
Diesel production). The defendant lodged an FIR on 18-04-07 stating
that one Sri Phuleswar Singha alongwith 10-12 labours encroached their
Tea Garden and illegally cut down their Tea bushes in section-18 of their
Garden. The police of the concerned police station came and arrested
them and after investigation the case was charge-sheeted against them.
Aftermath of trial process, the accused persons were acquitted. The
position of the plaintiffs are lowered down in the society and caused
irreparable loss to them and as such, entitled for compensation. However,
the plaintiffs faile to sustainable by adducing primary evidence.
Correct it is that, the defendant lodged an FIR on 18-04-07 stating that
one Sri Phuleswar Singha alongwith 10-12 labours encroached their Tea
Garden and illegally cut down their Tea bushes in section-18 of their
Garden. On that basis, the criminal proceeding was initiated. There was
through investigation by the police after arresting them. Having material
of the alleged offences, the said case was charge-sheeted against the
plaintiffs and forwarded to the ld. Court of CJM who eventually taken
cognizance of the offences against the plaintiff. After conclusion of trial,
the plaintiffs are acquitted for the failure to prove the case beyond all
reasonable doubt. The prime point to be determined is that whether the
defendant was infested/actuated with malice without any reasonable and
probable cause. It’s noteworthy that in a GR case, three agencies/persons
are involved till the finality of a case. No doubt the defendant was the
initiator of the said criminal case but the same was investigated
independently by the investigating officer. Having prima-facie materials
against the accused/plaintiffs the charge-sheet was filed. Subsequently,
the ld. CJM took cognizance of the said case and started the trial process
and eventually ended in equated as the prosecution failed to bring home
the alleged offence against the accused/ plaintiffs beyond all reasonable
 7

doubt. It does not mean that there was no prima facie of material against
the plaintiffs. Had there been no prima facie material against the plaintiff
in the FIR filed by the defendant in G.R. Case no. 221/2007, the case the
I.O. would have been filed the F/R rather than filing Charge-sheet against
them. Moreover, on the relevant day of occurrence the plaintiffs were
caught red handed while cutting the Tea Bushes by the tea garden
workers and subsequently police arrested them from the place of
occurrence. That’s a part Ext-1 seizure list filed by the I.O. elucidated the
fact that there were 1200 nos. of tea bushes recovered from the place of
occurrence which were destroyed by the plaintiffs. That being the
evidence on record it cannot be concluded that the present defendant
filed the FIR dated 18-4-2007 against the plaintiffs/ accused without
probable and reasonable cause infested with malice. Correct it is, the
D.W.-1, stated in his evidence that he had malice and ill motives to file
G.R. case against the present plaintiffs but the same is undoubtly an
advertent mistake apparent on the face of evidence in chief. The evidanc
eis to be ead and appreciated as a whole and not in piece meal manner.
Hence, the instant Issue is decided in negative.
4. In respect of relief/reliefs i.e. Issue No.6 & 7; after threadbare
discussion on evidence available in the record, the substantial issue Nos. 3
4 & 5 are decided against the plaintiffs and thus, they are dis- entitled for
the relief(s) as prayed for in the suit.
ORDER
8. In the result, the instant suit is dismissed on contest
without cost.
Let a decree be prepared, accordingly.
Given under my hand with the seal of the court on this 26th day of
February, 2016 at Hailakandi.
(N.S. Deori)
Civil Judge, Hailakandi.
 8

APPENDIX
1. Plaintiff’s witnesses,
P.W.-1, Ashok Kumar Singha.
P.W.-2, Sahadeb Singha.
2. Defendant’s witnesses,
D.W.-1, Rajib Das.
3. Plaintiff’s exhibits,
Ext-1, Certified copy of Judgment of G.R. 221/07
Ext.-2, is the original Records of Misc 336/09.
Ext.-3, is the original G.R. Record.
4. Defendant’s exhibits.
Nil.

(N.S. Deori),
Civil Judge, Hailakandi.