Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

A theft had been committed in the defendant's house. He informed the police that he suspected the plaintiff for the same. Therefore the plaintiff was arrested by the police. A complaint was filed by the defendant but the plaintiff was subsequently discharged by the magistrate as the final report showed that there was no evidence connecting the plaintiff with the theft. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution.
In the above case, which one of the following decisions is correct?

A theft had been committed in the defendant's house. He informed the police that he suspected the plaintiff for the same. Therefore the plaintiff was arrested by the police. A complaint was filed by the defendant but the plaintiff was subsequently discharged by the magistrate as the final report showed that there was no evidence connecting the plaintiff with the theft. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution.
In the above case, which one of the following decisions is correct? Correct Answer The plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages for malicious prosecution at all

Related Questions

The defendant had filed a complaint to the Magistrate against the plaintiff. The complaint was dismissed. The defendant moved the Sessions Judge in appeal. He got himself examined in Sessions trial although he knew the charge was false and he was acting without reasonable and probable cause. His complaint was dismissed by the Session Judge. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the defendant.
In the aforesaid case, which one of the following conclusion in correct?
If, in a complaint case it is made to appear to Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the same offence, which of the following order(s) a Magistrate may pass under Section 210 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
1. Return the complaint to be re-filed after police investigation
2. Stay the proceeding of inquiry or trial on such complaint
3. Call a report from the Investigating Officer
4. Refer the complaint for investigation by police
5. Refer the complaint to Chief Judicial Magistrate
In a suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant in his written statement has taken the objection of non-impleadment of necessary party. Despite such objection the plaintiff continued the suit and the suit finally was decreed. At the first appellate stage, the plaintiff withdraws the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and subsequently filed a fresh suit. The period spent by the plaintiff in the earlier suit, under section 14 of Limitation Act is
To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
A civil suit was repeatedly fixed by the trial court for examination of the defendant's witnesses but the said opportunity was not availed by the defendant, therefore on 18th November 2016 when neither the defendant nor his counsel had appeared, the trial court had proceeded ex parte and heard the final arguments and reserved the case for judgement. On 28th November 2016 the defendant had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is
The plaintiff in a suit, onus of all the issues framed wherein is on the plaintiff, during the cross-examination of the defendant and his witnesses produces documents not filed earlier and not executed by the defendant or his witnesses and puts to the defendant and his witnesses the said documents. The said documents are not admitted or acknowledged by the defendant and/or his witnesses and are not admitted into evidence though remain on record.
Existence of two suits, by parties litigating under same title, one previously instituted which is pending at present and the other filed later, wherein a matter in issue in the subsequently filed suit is directly and substantially in issue in the other and the relief claimed in the subsequent suit can effectively, be passed by the court of previous instance. Which section of Code of Civil Procedure decides the fate of the subsequently filed suit and its proceeding?
Which of the following requirements form an essential element of the tort of malicious prosecution?
1. Prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant
2. Termination of the case in favour of the defendant
3. Termination of the case in favour of the plaintiff
4. Presence of reasonable and probable cause
5. Absence of reasonable and probable cause
6. Malice on the part of the defendant
7. Damage suffered by the plaintiff
Select the correct answer using the given below:
Plaintiff was the chairperson of the town meeting. The defendant having been very vociferous, a motion was made and carried out by majority that the defendant be turned out. The defendant said he would rather pull out the plaintiff than he turned out. He advanced menacingly towards the plaintiff with clinched fists, but his advance was prevented by a warden. Decide appropriate civil action against the defendant for his action against the plaintiff.
X informed the police that in the dacoity committed in the House of M, he has a reason to believe that his neighbour Y was involved. Y is consequently arrested by the police. Subsequently he is released. Y files an action for malicious prosecution.