Skip to main content

WHAT IS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION?

 


WHAT IS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION? 

BY SWATEE SHUKLA 

Malicious prosecution involves carrying out unsuccessful criminal proceedings maliciously and without a reasonable and justifiable cause. When such a prosecution causes actual damage to the arty prosecuted, it is a tort for which he can bring an action. In the normal course of events, criminals and other wrongdoers are to be brought to justice through the institution of proceedings as provided by law. The law, however, forbids the misuse of this power of the institution of proceedings by wrongfully setting the law in motion for improper purposes. To prevent false and frivolous cases against innocent persons brought only in order to harass or annoy, an action for malicious prosecution is permitted. The term prosecution is not only limited to the stage of trial but also includes further stages such as appeal and revision. 

 A discussion on malicious prosecution involves two cases. The first case is where the plaintiff with a malicious intention prosecutes a person ( an accused in that case). In the second case, where one who was the accused in the first case will file a case for the tort of malicious prosecution against the person who prosecuted him maliciously ( this person was the prosecutor in the first case). therefore, in the second case, which is filed to seek reedy in tort law for malicious prosecution, the one who was the prosecutor in the first case becomes the defendant and the one who was accused would be the plaintiff. The tort of malicious prosecution requires an element of bad intention on the part f prosecutor and may lead to a tort claim as an action in criminal law. In order to succeed in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has to prove some essential conditions. 

The first condition to be satisfied for malicious prosecution is that there was a prosecution; and that the same was instituted by the defendant or on the complaint of the defendant. Prosecution means criminal proceedings against a person in a court of law. A prosecution arises when a criminal charge is made before a judicial officer or tribunal. 

The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant prosecuted him without reasonable and probable cause. If the prosecutor had honestly believed that the accused is likely to have caused the alleged wrongdoing, and therefore started proceedings, he cannot be said to have done so maliciously. However, before a prosecution is started, the defendant should have some feelings or thoughts that the plaintiff is guilty. However, if there is no such belief a tort of malicious prosecution will arise as a legal process has been instituted with full knowledge of the plaintiff’s innocence. 

The plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant acted maliciously in prosecuting him i.e. proceedings were initiated with an evil intention. The evil intention must be established. If one uses available legal resources in good faith, however wrongly, that does not amount to malicious prosecution.  

The proceedings complained should be terminated in favor of the present plaintiff which means, before a case of malicious prosecution can be filed, the prosecution must be terminated in favor of the accused of the cause of action for a tort of malicious prosecution to arise. If the prosecution succeeds, or if the allegations are found to be true, there is o way a claim for malicious prosecution can stand. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more