All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once whe... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrests Kishore, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.
Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.
  • a)
    Arjun is guilty because he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Kishore.
  • b)
    Arjun is guilty because he did not check before complaining that Kishore was guilty of the theft.
  • c)
    Arjun is not guilty because Kishore has not been prosecuted.
  • d)
    None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed...
Arjun is guilty as his only intention was to cause harm to Kishore.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed...
Explanation:

Malicious Prosecution:
- Malicious prosecution occurs when a person initiates a legal action against another person without probable cause and with malicious intent.

Arjun's Actions:
- Arjun lodged a criminal complaint against Kishore, falsely accusing him of robbery, with the sole intention of seeking revenge.
- Arjun did not have any reasonable cause to believe that Kishore was involved in the theft. He made the complaint out of malice towards Kishore.

Legal Consequences:
- The police, after investigating the complaint, found that Kishore was not connected to the crime and submitted a report to the Magistrate stating the same.
- As a result, the Magistrate discharged Kishore, indicating that there was no basis for the criminal complaint against him.

Conclusion:
- Arjun's actions clearly fall under the tort of malicious prosecution as he initiated the legal action against Kishore without any reasonable cause and with a malicious intent.
- Therefore, Arjun is guilty of malicious prosecution, and Kishore has the right to sue him for damages incurred as a result of the false accusation.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.Facts: Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrest Kishore investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.

Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s cas e) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Suppose if a person commits an offence of “sedition” under Chapter 6 of I.P.C and police arrest him for commission of such an act without taking prior sanction from government and further present him before the court

Section 154 of the Code requires that every information regarding the commission of any cognizable offence is to be reduced to writing either by the police officer-in-charge or under his direction. The written information shall be read over to and signed by the person giving it. This is known as ‘first information’. The main object of the first information report is to set the criminal law in motion and to set the investigation process in reference to the alleged offence. The FIR is an essential piece of any criminal trial in order to corroborate the evidence. The object of insisting upon the prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain prior information regarding the circumstances in which crime was committed, the name of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses.The first provision to the section provides any information given by any woman in relation to any specified offences is required to be recorded by a woman police officer. The second proviso lays down that any offence which is specified in the first proviso is alleged to be committed against the person who is either mentally or physically disabled is to be recorded by the police officer at the residence of such person or at any other place convenient to such person in presence of an interpreter or a special educator. It is further provided that all such information shall be videographed and the police officer gets the statement to be recorded by the Magistrate.Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the police officer to investigate a cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate. The police officer can investigate the case only where the Court has the jurisdiction over the local areas.Section 155 of the Code deals with the information in case of non-cognizable offences and their investigation. All the information received under this section will be recorded by the police officer in charge and will be entered in such books as may be prescribed by the State Government. According to section 155 (2), a police officer is not permitted to investigate a case relating to the non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate who has the power to try such cases. Moreover, no police officer has the power to arrest any person in the non-cognizable offence unless he has the warrant to arrest. Further, as per section 155 (4) if any case involves 2 or more offences and among all, if one is the cognizable offence, the entire case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case.Q. Which of the following statements is true regarding a cognizable case?

Section 154 of the Code requires that every information regarding the commission of any cognizable offence is to be reduced to writing either by the police officer-in-charge or under his direction. The written information shall be read over to and signed by the person giving it. This is known as ‘first information’. The main object of the first information report is to set the criminal law in motion and to set the investigation process in reference to the alleged offence. The FIR is an essential piece of any criminal trial in order to corroborate the evidence. The object of insisting upon the prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain prior information regarding the circumstances in which crime was committed, the name of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses.The first provision to the section provides any information given by any woman in relation to any specified offences is required to be recorded by a woman police officer. The second proviso lays down that any offence which is specified in the first proviso is alleged to be committed against the person who is either mentally or physically disabled is to be recorded by the police officer at the residence of such person or at any other place convenient to such person in presence of an interpreter or a special educator. It is further provided that all such information shall be videographed and the police officer gets the statement to be recorded by the Magistrate.Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the police officer to investigate a cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate. The police officer can investigate the case only where the Court has the jurisdiction over the local areas.Section 155 of the Code deals with the information in case of non-cognizable offences and their investigation. All the information received under this section will be recorded by the police officer in charge and will be entered in such books as may be prescribed by the State Government. According to section 155 (2), a police officer is not permitted to investigate a case relating to the non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate who has the power to try such cases. Moreover, no police officer has the power to arrest any person in the non-cognizable offence unless he has the warrant to arrest. Further, as per section 155 (4) if any case involves 2 or more offences and among all, if one is the cognizable offence, the entire case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case.Q. Based on the information provided in the passage, which of the following sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the investigation of a non-cognizable offence?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrests Kishore, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.a)Arjun is guilty because he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Kishore.b)Arjun is guilty because he did not check before complaining that Kishore was guilty of the theft.c)Arjun is not guilty because Kishore has not been prosecuted.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrests Kishore, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.a)Arjun is guilty because he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Kishore.b)Arjun is guilty because he did not check before complaining that Kishore was guilty of the theft.c)Arjun is not guilty because Kishore has not been prosecuted.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrests Kishore, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.a)Arjun is guilty because he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Kishore.b)Arjun is guilty because he did not check before complaining that Kishore was guilty of the theft.c)Arjun is not guilty because Kishore has not been prosecuted.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrests Kishore, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.a)Arjun is guilty because he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Kishore.b)Arjun is guilty because he did not check before complaining that Kishore was guilty of the theft.c)Arjun is not guilty because Kishore has not been prosecuted.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrests Kishore, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.a)Arjun is guilty because he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Kishore.b)Arjun is guilty because he did not check before complaining that Kishore was guilty of the theft.c)Arjun is not guilty because Kishore has not been prosecuted.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrests Kishore, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.a)Arjun is guilty because he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Kishore.b)Arjun is guilty because he did not check before complaining that Kishore was guilty of the theft.c)Arjun is not guilty because Kishore has not been prosecuted.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrests Kishore, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.a)Arjun is guilty because he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Kishore.b)Arjun is guilty because he did not check before complaining that Kishore was guilty of the theft.c)Arjun is not guilty because Kishore has not been prosecuted.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrests Kishore, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.a)Arjun is guilty because he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Kishore.b)Arjun is guilty because he did not check before complaining that Kishore was guilty of the theft.c)Arjun is not guilty because Kishore has not been prosecuted.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrests Kishore, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.a)Arjun is guilty because he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Kishore.b)Arjun is guilty because he did not check before complaining that Kishore was guilty of the theft.c)Arjun is not guilty because Kishore has not been prosecuted.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrests Kishore, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.a)Arjun is guilty because he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Kishore.b)Arjun is guilty because he did not check before complaining that Kishore was guilty of the theft.c)Arjun is not guilty because Kishore has not been prosecuted.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup