Author: Revanth Roy Chelluboyina, ICFAI law school, Dehradun
Introduction
Imagine being pulled into a legal fight you never wanted, over a crime you didn’t commit or a claim that isn’t true. For many people, the process itself can feel like a punishment. When someone uses the court system to settle a personal issue or cause harm, it goes beyond a simple mistake; it is malicious prosecution. If you have faced a baseless lawsuit that was ultimately resolved in your favour, you might have more than just a defence. You may have the right to hold your accuser responsible for the harm they’ve caused.
Definition: There are two terms in the malicious prosecution, Malice and prosecution. Malice is Mala fide intention/wish/desire to hurt someone and Prosecution is charging somebody with a crime. Malicious prosecution is a legal proceeding that is initiated without a reasonable Cause of Action & With harmful intent. It is also known of Abuse of process (To get unfair advantage over opponent)
Essential elements of Malicious prosecution:
1.Prosecution by the defendant: In legal terms, prosecution means that the accused was the “active instrument” that put the judicial process in motion, and not just a witness of information. This requirement is fulfilled the instant that a formal legal process, like a summons or a warrant, is issued against said defendant through judicial means, instigated by the latter. In addition, it ranges from the initial criminal trial to any appeal or revisions that would give the defendant another chance to continue prosecuting their case in bad faith. At the end of the day, the plaintiff must satisfy that the accused was the “real prosecutor” who prodded them to undergo the hardships of the criminal justice system.
2.Absence of Reasonable Cause: To establish this second element, the plaintiff must show that the defendant did not have an honest belief in the guilt of the accused on the facts available to him at the time. The court then applies an objective test as to whether a “reasonable and discreet person” would have proceeded with the institution of the proceedings under the same circumstances; suspicion is not reasonable cause, nor is it reasonable cause to omit to inquire as to the truth or falsity of the charge in respect of which proceedings are instituted. Even if the defendant honestly believed the plaintiff was guilty, the facts on which he based that belief must be such that a prudent person would have come to the same conclusion. If the facts known to the defendant were so flimsy, or so admittedly false, that no reasonable man would charge another with a crime, the court will hold that no reasonable and probable cause existed.
3.Defendant acted maliciously: In order to prove the existence of malice, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant did not primarily have the good faith intention to bring the wrongdoer to justice. In this respect, malice should not be construed to necessarily involve ill intent on the party to be held liable, but simply an “improper purpose,” for instance, to extortion, to vindicate an individual grievance, to obtain leverage in a collateral civil dispute. By virtue of intent being an internal experience, the total lack of reasonable and probable cause shall, according to the court, constitute malice, since to harbour an ill intent, one would not normally hale someone before the court for no good reason.
4.Termintion of proceeding in the favour of plaintiff: This requirement guarantees that the malicious prosecution action does not present any conflict with a contemporaneous criminal case, thereby precluding the possible conflict between two different courts’ findings that arrive at opposite conclusions from the same set of circumstances. The use of “termination in favour of the plaintiff” does not necessarily imply a trial and a “not guilty” verdict but is deemed sufficient if the prosecution in question has expired without a judicial finding of guilt, for example, by virtue of a conviction in a case that has been dismissed, a case that has been withdrawn by the prosecutor. For a conviction obtained by the plaintiff, the action is barred, since the conviction constitutes conclusive proof that the prosecution was based on reasonable and probable cause. Therefore, until the original case is adjudicated, the case is not ripe, and the plaintiff cannot yet file a suit in a court of law in order to seek compensation.
5.Plaintiff Suffered Damage as the result of such prosecution & proceeding:
It is also necessary that the plaintiff must prove that the plaintiff suffered such damage as a result of such prosecution. Damage may be to reputation, property, or body; it has to be proved by appropriate evidence. whereas in malicious Criminal prosecution, no action can be brought in the Case of civil proceeding.
Malicious prosecution defences:
Defendant can plead the following defences against plaintiff-
1.He acted according to Statutory Authority
2.The prosecution was of civil nature
3.There was no malice in prosecution. He had no enmity with plaintiff. He had no Concern with plaintiff.
4.The prosecution was instituted by authorities on his complaint with reasonable and probable Couse.
5.The prosecution was instituted in the interests of nation
6.Plaintiff did not suffer any damages
7.If he had given only information to police Authorities. He acted in good faith. He Supplied the evidence to the police and enquiring officers on bona fide belief. In spite of giving information, he did not take any initiative action or work against. He did not influence any officer. He did not give any false or concocted evidence.
8.If there were several defendants, and one or more defendants Compromised with the plaintiff, thus Causing the criminal proceedings in termination, the defendant can plead that there was a Compromise between the plaintiff and the other defendants which diluted the Care, and in final it Was terminated.
Case Laws
1. West Bengal state electricity Board vs Dilip Kumar Ray (2007): The Apex Count in this Case explained that there were 2 essential elements for Constituting a malicious prosecution namely,
a) That no probable Cause existed for instituting the prosecution or suit Complained of
b) that such prosecution or suit terminated in some way favourably to the defendant therein.
2. State of Bihar vs bachichi Devi (2012): In this Case where the husband was alleged to have murdered his wife, it was argued that the husband and her-in-laws were arrested because of conspiracy between the parents of deceased wife and police. There was failure on part of accused to prove that they had been maliciously arrested or that they had been subjected to unlawful Confinement without any legal process or without probable Cause. In the absence of the same, it was held that the state was not liable to pay damages as Compensation for Wrongful confinement of the accused and kins.
Conclusion
Malicious prosecution is an important threshold in the rule of law, separating the right to seek justice from a license to harass. A plaintiff’s success under such a claim requires overcoming an onerous burden of proof: he must show that the defendant was a procuring cause of a process that lacked probable cause yet was initiated under improper motivation. While the good-faith and statutory defences safeguard many, the law provides an important remedy to one whose reputation, property, or liberty has been wrongfully invaded. These legal tenets keep the courts pure: they punish the “abuse of process” and compensate those victimized by the use of the law as a weapon.
FAQS
Q. What is the primary difference between a regular prosecution and a malicious one?
A: A malicious prosecution is initiated without any reasonable cause and with an improper motive to harm the defendant, rather than a good-faith desire to see justice served.
Q: Can I sue for malicious prosecution if the original case against me is still ongoing?
A: No, the legal proceedings must first terminate in your favour to ensure there are no conflicting judicial findings and to prove the initial charge lacked merit.
Q: Does a plaintiff have to prove they suffered physical harm to win a case?
A: Not necessarily; damage can be proven through harm to one’s reputation, loss of property, or financial strain, provided there is clear evidence linking the damage to the prosecution.
