Malicious Prosecution, Study notes of Law of Torts

Malicious prosecution vuyvuvyvuvutvcuctucccucfcutcfcutctcucutctcuvftvutv

Typology: Study notes

2020/2021

Uploaded on 04/13/2021

reetulpriya
reetulpriya 🇮🇳

3

(1)

1 document

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Torts Against Person and Personal Relations: Part IV: Malicious Prosecution
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.
Loss of liberty
Even the anticipation of arrest or conviction creates a fear in the person who is accused.
Thomson v. Metropolitan Police 1998 talks about the fear.
Hicks v. Faulkner 1881
Saville v. Roberts 1698 was the originating case for malicious prosecution.
E.H v. A.B 2009, in this case the accused when acquitted filed a case against the prosecutor
but the court held that even though she gave false evidence she can only be liable for that
and not for maliciously prosecuting the acquitted person as she did not file the case herself,
she disclosed it to another friend of hers not knowing that the friend will file for a suit.
Reynolds v Kennedy sometimes a person can be convicted at the stage of trial but can be
acquitted in the judgment but then also he can file for malicious Prosecution.
It is difficult to understand who's the prosecutor.
The person who has been discharged can file for malicious prosecution.
Essentials:
Prosecution by defendant
Termination of proceedings in plaintiff’s favour.
Prosecution should have started without any reasonable and probable cause.
Prosecution must have been initiated with a malicious intention.
Plaintiff must suffer damage.
1. Prosecution by defendant
Two elements required:
Plaintiff was prosecuted
Defendant was the prosecutor
To prosecute means to set law in motion, which is done by an appeal to some person
clothed with judicial authority in regard to that matter. The gist of the action is that
the defendant set the Magistrate is motion.
Cases-
pf3
pf4

Partial preview of the text

Download Malicious Prosecution and more Study notes Law of Torts in PDF only on Docsity!

Torts Against Person and Personal Relations: Part IV: Malicious Prosecution 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. Loss of liberty Even the anticipation of arrest or conviction creates a fear in the person who is accused. Thomson v. Metropolitan Police 1998 talks about the fear. Hicks v. Faulkner 1881 Saville v. Roberts 1698 was the originating case for malicious prosecution. E.H v. A.B 2009, in this case the accused when acquitted filed a case against the prosecutor but the court held that even though she gave false evidence she can only be liable for that and not for maliciously prosecuting the acquitted person as she did not file the case herself, she disclosed it to another friend of hers not knowing that the friend will file for a suit. Reynolds v Kennedy sometimes a person can be convicted at the stage of trial but can be acquitted in the judgment but then also he can file for malicious Prosecution. It is difficult to understand who's the prosecutor. The person who has been discharged can file for malicious prosecution. Essentials:  Prosecution by defendant  Termination of proceedings in plaintiff’s favour.  Prosecution should have started without any reasonable and probable cause.  Prosecution must have been initiated with a malicious intention.  Plaintiff must suffer damage.

1. Prosecution by defendant Two elements required:  Plaintiff was prosecuted  Defendant was the prosecutor To prosecute means to set law in motion, which is done by an appeal to some person clothed with judicial authority in regard to that matter. The gist of the action is that the defendant set the Magistrate is motion. Cases-

D.N. Bandhopadhyaya v. UOI AIR 1967 Raj 83: Mere departmental enquiry by disciplinary authority can not be called prosecution. The term ‘Prosecution’ was discussed. And the court held that “Prosecution means the law should be set in motion by making a complaint before an authority exercising judicial powers. Kapoor Chand V. Jagdish Chand AIR 1974 P&H 215: Plaintiff sued the defendant falsely that defendant has obtained a false degree of Hakim from Board of Ayurvedic & Unani System of Medicines. Plaintiff also stated that defendant is illiterate. On further investigation, it was found that plaintiff was prosecuting the defendant maliciously. Since the Malicious Prosecution is there, case was presented before quasi judicial authorities. Pandit Gaya Parshad Tewari v. Sardar Bhagat Singh (1907-08) 35 IA 189: Privy council stated that the conduct of the complainant, before and after the complaint has to be seen to decide whether he is really a prosecutor or not. If information given by him is false and he knows that, and done just to misguide the police, he will be considered as prosecutor. Hazoor Singh v. Ganga Singh AIR 1973 82: the court discussed various circumstances where a person was considered as a prosecutor, and they are as follows: a. The defendant had the knowledge about the evidence that he was providing was false and was not factual. b. The evidence that the defendant brought in the court of law was false. c. The defendant tried to influence the authorities for the involvement of the plaintiff who was innocent. d. There was influence on the police or the authorities to start prosecution.

2. Termination of proceedings in plaintiff’s favour No action for malicious prosecution lies until the prosecution has terminated in favour of the person complaining for it. Termination of proceedings in plaintiff’s favour- Concept of discharge, it can take place after the trial or when the judgment is passed. Cases- State of Bihar v. R.P. Baidya AIR 1980 Pat 267: Where the High court orders quashing of the criminal case at the cognising stage being frivolous in nature, it puts an end to the criminal proceedings launched against the plaintiff. Issardas v. Acissudomat AIR 1940 Ker 230: Where proceedings were withdrawn by the complainant as a result of settlement with one of the several persons complained against, the other persons are entitled to bring an action for malicious prosecution. 3. Prosecution should have been started without any reasonable and probable cause

IDENTIFY HOW WHEN AND WHERE THERE WAS MALICE.

  1. It's a subjective test as it's subjected to the test of inherent bias. The bias-ness could be of any type. There is a systematic deviation from rationality. 104 categories of biases are there. Your opinion is being clouded by the bias and you can't see the facts.
  2. Inference cannot affect the reasonable and probable cause. 5. PLAINTIFF MUST SUFFER DAMAGE Lalita Kumari v State of UP Preliminary inquiry or investigation is required within 7 days to identify whether there has been a cognizable offence or not.