LEGAL PRINCIPLE: In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following essentials:
(1) That he was prosecuted by the defendant
(2) That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff
(3) That the prosecution was initiated against him without any just or reasonable cause
(4) That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact
(5) That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to security of his property
FACTS: A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co., for personal injuries. Subsequently, Railway Co. came to know that injuries were not real and were created by doctor B. Railway Co. prosecuted B for playing fraud on the company, but B was acquitted. B sued Railway Co. for malicious prosecution. In the light of these facts which of the following statements is true?
DECIDE.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following essentials:
(1) That he was prosecuted by the defendant
(2) That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff
(3) That the prosecution was initiated against him without any just or reasonable cause
(4) That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact
(5) That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to security of his property
FACTS: A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co., for personal injuries. Subsequently, Railway Co. came to know that injuries were not real and were created by doctor B. Railway Co. prosecuted B for playing fraud on the company, but B was acquitted. B sued Railway Co. for malicious prosecution. In the light of these facts which of the following statements is true?
DECIDE.
The correct option is B Railway Co. is not guilty of malicious prosecution because the Co. took reasonable care in determining the facts and honestly believed them to be true
- For filing a suit for malicious prosecution it is very important to prove that the proceedings against the plaintiff was initiated without any reasonable cause. In other words, the Courts have opined that the plaintiff must prove that there was 'abuse of process' of legal provisions in initiation of proceedings.
- It was held in the case of Abrath v North Eastern Railway Co. it is not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff has been acquitted of the charges upon which he has been tried. It has to be proved that the defendants had a malicious intention to prosecute the plaintiff. The intention must not be to put the law into effect based on some honest belief but must be to prove a wrong fact.
- In this case, it can be concluded from the facts and circumstances that the Railways has an honest belief that the doctor had committed fraud on the company.
- For filing a suit for malicious prosecution it is very important to prove that the proceedings against the plaintiff was initiated without any reasonable cause. In other words, the Courts have opined that the plaintiff must prove that there was 'abuse of process' of legal provisions in initiation of proceedings.
- It was held in the case of Abrath v North Eastern Railway Co. it is not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff has been acquitted of the charges upon which he has been tried. It has to be proved that the defendants had a malicious intention to prosecute the plaintiff. The intention must not be to put the law into effect based on some honest belief but must be to prove a wrong fact.
- In this case, it can be concluded from the facts and circumstances that the Railways has an honest belief that the doctor had committed fraud on the company.
