Case Summary
Jateesh K T, the plaintiff, accuses the defendants, Prathapan and Kunjamma, of malicious prosecution stemming from a false criminal allegation. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his case and dismissed the suit.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for damages, finding that he failed to prove that the defendants maliciously prosecuted him. The court noted an absence of malice or any probable cause from the defendants.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff did not prove the elements of malicious prosecution.
The plaintiff did not prove the elements of malicious prosecution.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff did not prove the elements of malicious prosecution.
The plaintiff did not prove the elements of malicious prosecution.
Supporting Evidence
The court is satisfied that although the plaintiff was acquitted, he has not proved that the defendants instituted the legal action against him without any probable and reasonable cause.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jateesh K T
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Prathapan
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kunjamma
- Party Age
- 75
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of FIR No. 97/16, Certified copy of judgment in C.C. No. 171 of 2016, Office copy of the lawyer notice, Reply notice, Relevant page in certified copy of deposition.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M S Unnikrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K Sunil
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Aleena Maria Jose
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ardrakrishnan M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Mohammed Ziraj
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Cyriac Tom
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Claim for damages of Rs. 1 lakh for malicious prosecution
Evidence:
the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants have maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and hence he is not entitled for compensation as sought for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Final report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of FIR along with Final report in FIR No. 97/16 of Thrikkakara Police Station
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of judgment in C C No. 171 of 2016 on the files of the JFCM Court, Kakkanad
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Office copy of the Lawyer notice issued to the defendants
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Reply notice
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Deposition
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Relevant page in certified copy of deposition of CW4/PW3 (Prathapan) in C C 171/2016 JFCM Court, Kakkanad
Reference:
Ext.A5
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Jateesh K T vs Prathapan et al regarding damages for malicious prosecution.
Case Code Year
Case between Jateesh K T vs Prathapan et al regarding damages for malicious prosecution.