Bombay High Court Upholds Plaintiff's Right to Sue for Malicious Prosecution
Nagpur Bench rules that Section 32(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1950, does not bar suits against informants acting with malicious intent.
News Report:
Nagpur, September 17, 2025 - In a significant judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench, Justice Rohit W. Joshi dismissed a Civil Revision Application filed by Nirbhay, challenging the rejection of his application to dismiss a suit for damages on account of alleged malicious prosecution. The Court ruled that Section 32(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1950, does not preclude a suit against an informant who initiates prosecution with malice.
The case revolves around Nirbhay, the applicant, who had filed an application seeking the rejection of a plaint filed by Baban, the respondent, in Special Civil Suit No.20 of 2019. Baban, who was acquitted in a criminal case related to his duties during electoral roll preparation, filed the suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution.
Nirbhay contended that the suit was barred under Section 32(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1950, which prevents suits against officers for acts related to electoral duties. However, Justice Joshi emphasized that while the Act restricts legal proceedings against officers for such acts, it does not inhibit suits against informants who allegedly act with malicious intent.
The judgment clarified that the absence of a finding of malicious intent in the criminal acquittal does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a civil suit for malicious prosecution. The Court referred to precedents, including the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling in Sukhwinder Singh v. Ravinder Singh, to reinforce this position.
Additionally, the Court addressed procedural issues, stating that contentions raised for the first time in a revision application cannot be entertained if not previously presented at the trial level. This aspect upheld the trial court's decision to reject the application for dismissal of the plaint.
The judgment further dissected Section 32(1) and 32(2) of the Act, explaining their interplay. While officers guilty of failing official duties can face punishment, the Act does not shield informants from suits for malicious prosecution, if pursued with malice.
Justice Joshi also noted that the applicant's failure to demonstrate jurisdictional errors in the trial court's order warranted the dismissal of the revision application. The Court's observations were clarified as pertinent to the revision application only, leaving the merits of the suit to be determined without influence from these remarks.
This ruling not only reinforces the legal distinction between informants and officers under electoral laws but also underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding individuals' rights against unfounded prosecutions. The decision is expected to have implications for future cases involving claims of malicious prosecution, particularly in electoral contexts.
The dismissal of Nirbhay's application affirms the trial court's decision, allowing Baban's suit for damages to proceed, marking a pivotal moment in the interpretation of legal protections under the Representation of People Act, 1950.
Nirbhay v. Baban, (Bombay)(Nagpur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2780062
