Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Abhijeet B. Chavan, filed a Civil Revision Application before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 2nd January 2024 passed by the learned Trial Court, which rejected his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint. The respondent, Pradeep Nee Sachin Tukaram Kadam, had filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the applicant. The suit was based on the fact that the applicant had instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) against the respondent on account of dishonour of a cheque issued by the respondent. The respondent was acquitted in those proceedings, and he thereafter filed the suit for malicious prosecution. The applicant contended that the suit was not maintainable because the mere fact of acquittal in the Section 138 proceedings did not furnish a cause of action for malicious prosecution. The learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Satyajeet Chavan, argued that the respondent had admitted issuing the cheque, and the institution of proceedings was based on that admitted fact. He relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Nau Nihal Singh Rana v. Sunil Kumar, 2013 Supreme (Del) 927, where the court allowed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint in a defamation suit on the ground that statements made in previous proceedings cannot form the basis of a suit. The court analyzed the issue and held that a suit for malicious prosecution requires the plaintiff to plead and prove that the defendant acted maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause. Mere acquittal in the previous proceedings is not sufficient. The court found that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, the court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the Trial Court's order, and rejected the plaint.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - Malicious Prosecution - The court considered whether a suit for malicious prosecution based solely on an acquittal in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, discloses a cause of action. The court held that mere acquittal, without additional allegations of malice and lack of reasonable and probable cause, does not furnish a cause of action for malicious prosecution. The plaint was rejected as it did not disclose any cause of action. (Paras 1-5) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Malicious Prosecution - Section 138 - Cause of Action - The court examined the maintainability of a suit for malicious prosecution arising from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It held that the institution of proceedings on the dishonour of a cheque admittedly issued by the plaintiff does not, by itself, give rise to a cause of action for malicious prosecution merely because the plaintiff was acquitted. The court relied on the principle that the plaintiff must plead and prove malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an acquittal in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by itself, furnishes a cause of action for a suit for malicious prosecution, and whether the plaint in such a suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the order dated 2nd January 2024 passed by the learned Trial Court, and rejected the plaint in the suit for malicious prosecution.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- malicious prosecution
- cause of action
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- acquittal not sufficient for malicious prosecution suit
