Girja Prasad Sharma v. Umashankar Pathak

Facts

During a Jan Sangh agitation in Panna, revolver shots were fired (probably accidentally) from the revolver of Sub-Inspector Girja Prasad. He lodged an FIR alleging he was assaulted, his watch snatched, and that the plaintiff advocate Umashankar Pathak was present instigating the crowd. The plaintiff was arrested and later discharged. It was found that the plaintiff was in fact appearing in a civil suit before the Civil Judge at the relevant time and was not at the scene. The plaintiff sued the SI, the SHO, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor.

Issues

• Did the complainant who lodged a false FIR act without reasonable and probable cause and with malice?
• Can the investigating officer who filed a charge-sheet be held liable for malicious prosecution?

Arguments

The plaintiff argued that the FIR was false to the complainant's knowledge, showing want of reasonable and probable cause and malice, and that the defendants had conspired to falsely implicate him. The defendants denied malice and want of reasonable cause, the investigating officer contending he merely performed his statutory duty in good faith.

Held

The High Court held that the complainant Girja Prasad's statement was false to his knowledge, establishing absence of reasonable and probable cause and an inference that he used the machinery of law for the improper purpose of falsely implicating the plaintiff; he was held liable. Conspiracy among the defendants was not proved. The investigating officer, though he prosecuted, was not shown to have acted with malice or without reasonable and probable cause; his duty is only to find honestly whether there is reasonable cause to bring the accused to fair trial, not to act like a court, so he was not liable. The SHO was likewise not liable.

Ratio decidendi

Lodging an FIR false to the maker's knowledge establishes both absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice; but an investigating officer who honestly finds a fit case to place before the court is not liable for malicious prosecution merely because the accused is later acquitted.

Significance

A leading Indian decision illustrating the separate proof of absence of reasonable and probable cause and of malice, and carefully delimiting the liability of complainants versus investigating/police officers. Frequently cited for the standard governing an investigating officer's 'reasonable and probable cause'.

Related