Malicious Prosecution under Law of Tort | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Introduction

Maliciously initiated legal proceedings can encompass a range of actions, including malicious prosecution, malicious arrest, malicious bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings (which are civil proceedings), malicious execution of legal orders against property, and malicious searches. Malicious prosecution specifically pertains to the wrongful and ill-intentioned initiation of criminal, bankruptcy, or liquidation proceedings against someone, lacking reasonable or probable cause. Essentially, malicious prosecution refers to a legal action brought by one person against another, driven by wrongful or improper motives and lacking any justifiable basis in terms of reasonableness or probability.

In the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray, the Court provided the following definition for "malicious prosecution":

"Malicious prosecution refers to the initiation of a legal proceeding by one person against another, driven by wrongful or improper motives and without probable cause to sustain it."

In the same case, the Court also distinguished between "an action for malicious prosecution" and "an action for abuse of process" as follows:

"Malicious prosecution entails the malicious initiation of legal processes, while abuse of process involves the misuse of legal procedures for purposes other than those intended by the law, constituting an improper use of legally issued processes."

Essential Elements of Malicious Prosecution

To bring a case for damages due to malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must establish several key elements:

• Prosecution by the defendant: The first fundamental requirement is demonstrating that the defendant initiated legal proceedings against the plaintiff. It's important to note that "prosecution" goes beyond just trial and encompasses various legal actions, including appeals and revisions. Even if the defendant acted under court orders, they can still be liable if their false evidence influenced the court's decision.
• Absence of reasonable and probable cause: The plaintiff must prove that the defendant pursued the prosecution without reasonable and probable cause. This determination should be based on all the facts presented in court. The burden of proving the absence of reasonable and probable cause rests with the plaintiff. Even if reasonable and probable cause existed, its ignorance by the prosecutor doesn't excuse their liability. An indictment containing both valid and invalid charges can still lead to a claim of malicious prosecution.
• Defendant acted maliciously: Another crucial element is establishing that the defendant acted with malice when prosecuting the plaintiff, rather than merely seeking to uphold the law. Malice can be any improper motive driving the prosecution, such as gaining a private advantage. It doesn't necessarily require feelings of enmity or spite. Malice may be inferred if there is proof of the absence of an honest belief in the accusation and a consequent lack of reasonable and probable cause.
• Termination of proceedings in favor of the plaintiff: The plaintiff must show that the proceedings in question ended in a manner favorable to them. This doesn't necessarily mean a judicial determination of innocence but rather an absence of a judicial determination of guilt. Notably, a claim for malicious prosecution cannot be made while the prosecution or proceedings are still ongoing.
• Plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the prosecution: The final essential element is demonstrating that the plaintiff suffered damage due to the prosecution. The plaintiff can seek damages in three areas: damage to their reputation, damage to their person, and damage to their property.

In summary, for a successful claim of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant initiated proceedings against them without reasonable and probable cause, acted maliciously, saw the proceedings end in their favor, and experienced damage as a direct consequence of the prosecution.

Malicious Civil Proceedings

In the case of Darbhangi Thakur v. Mahabir Prasad, it was established that, unlike malicious criminal prosecutions, there is generally no basis for taking legal action in the context of civil proceedings, even if they are maliciously initiated and lack reasonable cause.

In the case of Genu Ganapati v. Bhalchand Jivraj, the essential requirements for proving malicious abuse of civil proceedings were outlined:

• Malice must be proven: The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant acted with malice.
• The plaintiff must allege and prove a lack of reasonable and probable cause: The plaintiff needs to assert and substantiate that the defendant initiated the civil proceedings without reasonable and probable cause. Additionally, it should be shown that the proceedings either concluded in favor of the plaintiff or that the complained-of process was terminated or revoked.
• The plaintiff must also prove that the civil proceedings interfered with their liberty, property, or reputation, or had the potential to do so.

Conclusion

Malicious proceedings are those legal actions initiated with a malicious intent. To bring a case for damages due to malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must establish specific elements, including the defendant's initiation of proceedings, the absence of reasonable and probable cause, the defendant's malicious intent, the termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favor, and damages suffered as a direct result of the prosecution. However, the court should evaluate whether the lawsuit was filed with malicious intent based on the circumstances and facts of the case.