Open Access Research Article
Malicious Prosecution and False Imprisonment - The Perfect Anti-couple?(By-Shashank Chawathe)
Published Paper
Article Details
Malicious Prosecution and False Imprisonment - The
Perfect Anti-couple?
Authored By-Shashank
Chawathe
Table Of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Meaning of the terms
·
Malicious
Prosecution
·
False
Imprisonment
3. What are the essential elements?
Malicious
Prosecution
·
Proof
of malicious prosecution
·
Plaintiff
to emerge victorious in the prior proceedings
·
No
reasonable cause
·
Presence
of malicious intention
·
Damages
suffered by Plaintiff
False
Imprisonment
·
Plaintiff
to be completely deprived of his liberty.
·
Knowledge
of restraint is not necessary
·
Detention
must be unlawful.
4. Landmark cases –
Malicious
Prosecution
·
Abdul
Majid V/S Harbansh Chaube And Ors., AIR 1974 All 129
False
Imprisonment
·
Bhim
Singh, MLA VS State of J&K And Ors., 22nd November 1985, AIR
1986 SC 494.
Introduction:
Legal
aspects in Torts are in large numbers and people often misuse the terms number
of times mistakenly. For instance, new learners in the field of law who try to
gather knowledge often make the mistake of using the terms “Malicious
Prosecution” and “False Imprisonment” synonymously. Even though these terms
sound and look similar, their meanings and the period when they occur are
completely different.
Malicious
prosecution and False imprisonment are not just random terms that exist in
Torts law, they act as remedies. These remedies exist for a specific purpose.
Earlier, the victims of malicious prosecution had no legal recourse to protect
themselves against the abuse of the process of law. Then, the Supreme Court
pointed out that the ‘Right to Reputation’ is a part and parcel of the ‘Right
to Life and Personal Liberty’ that is guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
Thus, for the aggrieved person to claim damages for the infringement of his
rights under the law of torts, the defence of Malicious prosecution was brought
into force. The defence of malicious prosecution exists to provide damages to
the persons who have faced mental stress, agony, loss of reputation, loss of
livelihood, loss of earnings, the costs of defending the prosecution, physical
hardships etc. Similarly, the remedy of False imprisonment was brought into
force by the court, to enable a victim of the same, to seek compensation for
the damages suffered. The damages, as mentioned earlier, can be of mental
stress, agony, loss of reputation, loss of livelihood, loss of earnings, costs
of lawyer, physical hardships etc. Once the plaintiff succeeds in his suit of
false imprisonment, he is entitled to receive compensation of either kind.
Malicious Prosecution –
Malicious Prosecution
comprises of two words, namely, ‘Malicious’ and ‘Prosecution’. ‘Malicious’
means when a person has an intent to commit unlawful act without any legal
justification. In simple words, it means intentionally doing an act which is
not permitted by law without having any legal justification. The word
‘Prosecution’ conveys the
process of proving someone guilty for a crime
in a court of law. The said word carries a wider sense than a trial and includes
criminal proceedings by way of appeal, or revision. A departmental enquiry by
disciplinary authority cannot be called prosecution as it does not take place
in a court of law. When taken the two together, it means, “Intentionally trying
to show/prove someone guilty or intending to start a criminal proceeding in a
court of law for a crime which he/she hasn’t committed, without legal
justification.” Sometimes criminal charges or civil lawsuits are maliciously
filed in order to intimidate, harass, defame or otherwise injure the other
party. This action is referred to as Malicious Prosecution. In this, an
innocent person is maliciously prosecuted.
False Imprisonment -
False imprisonment consists of two
words, namely, ‘False’ and ‘Imprisonment’. ‘False’ means something which is
unlawful or without any lawful justification in legal terms and ‘Imprisonment’
means putting someone behind the bars. Putting someone behind the bars for
something which he/she hasn’t done or in other words, unlawfully imprisoning
someone, is termed as “False Imprisonment”. False imprisonment is defined as,
“Total restrain of person’s liberty without lawful justification.” It is also
called unlawful arrest or unlawful detention.
Essentials Of Malicious Prosecution:
A person in order to file a suit and
prove that he had been maliciously prosecuted in a court of law needs to prove
some essentials of the same -
·
The
plaintiff to succeed in a suit of malicious prosecution has to first prove that
he has been maliciously prosecuted by the defendant. **
·
Prior
to the last point, a plaintiff, to file a suit for malicious prosecution, has
to emerge victorious in the previous proceeding, in which he claims to be
maliciously prosecuted. Only after the termination of the prior proceeding in
favour of the Plaintiff, he can file a suit of malicious prosecution against
the defendant. **
·
The
plaintiff needs to prove that he was prosecuted without any reasonable cause.
For example, A files a suit of robbery on B just because he had a fight with
him last week. This is not a reasonable cause and B can use it as a point of
defence.**
·
The
Plaintiff needs to prove that the prosecution which he claims to be malicious,
was with a malicious intention.**
·
Most
importantly, the Plaintiff needs to prove that he has suffered damages. They
can be mental, financial, emotional or any other damages. **
These five essentials must be
fulfilled to file a suit of malicious prosecution against a person or
authority.
Essentials OF False Imprisonment:
A person in order to file a suit and
prove that he had been falsely imprisoned needs to prove some essentials of the
same -
·
The
Plaintiff has to prove that he had been completely deprived of his liberty.
There should have been a total restraint on his liberty.**
·
The
confinement must be intentional.** If the confinement arises out of a genuine
mistake or ignorance of the circumstances, then liability for false
imprisonment cannot arise. The defendant must have wilfully caused the action.
·
Knowledge
of restraint is not necessary.** If there is a restraint on the movement or
liberty of any person, even though he/she does not possess the knowledge of the
same, it is a case of false imprisonment because there is a total restraint on
the movement or liberty of the person.
·
Detention
must be unlawful.** The detention of the plaintiff should be unlawful. If it is
lawful ie. with true evidence and as per law, then the question of false
imprisonment does not arise.
These three essentials must be
fulfilled to file a suit of false imprisonment against a person or authority.
Landmark Case For Malicious
Prosecution
Abdul Majid V/S Harbansh Chaube and
Ors., AIR 1974 All 129
The
case revolves around a dacoity that took place in house of Ali Raza in the
village of Bankata, in the night of July 21/22. The plaintiff was prosecuted in
this case under Section 412, IPC for being found in possession of a ‘hansuli’
alleged to be belonging to Ali Raza. The three defendants in this case were a
station officer and the other two being search
witnesses. The plaintiff was
acquitted by the Sessions court on 9th October 1950 in the said
case. Thereafter, the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant no. 1 under
Section 80, CPC, which was returned refused by the defendant no. 1. Following
this, the plaintiff then filed a suit for damages on the ground of Malicious
prosecution claiming a sum of Rs. 1000 from the three defendants. The plaintiff
alleged that the three defendants were his enemies and had plot and conspired
to cause harm to him. Thus, they took an unlawful advantage of the dacoity
which took place at the house of Ali Raza, to falsely implicate him as an
accused under Section 412, IPC in the said dacoity case. The plaintiff alleged
that he neither participated in the said dacoity nor received any stolen
property, but he was maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause,
prosecuted by the defendants.
The
court concluded by passing a judgement of Malicious prosecution. The court
found that the prosecution against the plaintiff was concocted by the
defendants and there was no reasonable cause for the defendants to prosecute
the plaintiff.
Landmark Case For False
Imprisonment
Bhim Singh, MLA VS State of J&K
And Ors., 22nd November 1985, AIR 1986 SC 494.
The
case revolves around the false imprisonment of Bhim Singh, MLA of Jammu &
Kashmir. In this case, the MLA was to participate in an Assembly session of the
Legislative Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir on 11th September 1985.
On the night of 9th-10th September, 1985, while he was proceeding
from Jammu to Srinagar, at about 3 am, he was arrested at a place called Qazi
Kund about 70 kms from Srinagar. He was taken away by the police. He was kept
in lockup from 10th to 14th and was produced before the
Magistrate for the first time only on 14th. Thereafter, he appealed
in court of law claiming damages for false imprisonment. He alleged that his
opponents, in order to prevent him from attending the Assembly session, got him
arrested wrongfully with the help of some executives and police officers. The
magistrate had also granted remand to police without compliance of the
mandatory requirement of production of the accused in the Magistrates court
before remanding him to police custody.
The Supreme Court in its judgement
held that the State was liable for false imprisonment of the Plaintiff and
ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the plaintiff.
Conclusion
Malicious prosecution and false
imprisonment may occur because of negligence or malicious intention of the
defendant. The result of both, however, is faced and suffered by the plaintiff
for which he should be surely awarded compensation. While awarding
compensation, the damage suffered by him, duration of confinement, mental
stress as well as the loss of reputation suffered by him should be taken into
account to provide fair justice. Both malicious prosecution and false
imprisonment also violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which provides
for the Right to life and personal liberty of every citizen of the country. In
coming times, expect more people to come up with ‘Malicious Prosecution’ and
‘False Imprisonment’ allegations with its meaning becoming clear day-by-day.
With similar end-results of both torts, and minor similarities in their look as
well, difference in their occurrence period and nature make them the 'Perfect
Anti-couple.'
References –
The Law of Torts by Ratanlal &
Dhirajlal
Article Information
Malicious Prosecution and False Imprisonment - The Perfect Anti-couple?(By-Shashank Chawathe)
Authors: Shashank Chawathe
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2022/09/19
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.