Malicious prosecution claims require proof of malice and lack of reasonable cause; mere acquittal does not create civil liability.

A claim for malicious prosecution requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant initiated or continued the prosecution maliciously, without reasonable and probable cause, that the criminal case ended in the plaintiff's favour, and that damage resulted; the burden remains on the plaintiff throughout. Where the defendant merely supplied information to police, who then investigated and filed a charge-sheet, liability does not arise unless the report is shown to be false to the defendant's knowledge and the prosecution lacking reasonable and probable cause. Mere acquittal is not enough to establish civil liability for malicious prosecution, and the plaintiff was not entitled to damages.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff proved the essential ingredients of malicious prosecution so as to recover damages, namely that the defendant initiated or continued the prosecution maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause.

Analysis: An action for malicious prosecution is a tort and the plaintiff must establish the essential ingredients, including initiation of proceedings by the defendant, malice, absence of reasonable and probable cause, termination of the criminal case in the plaintiff's favour, and resulting damage. The burden of proving these ingredients remains on the plaintiff throughout. On the facts, the defendant had given information to the police, the police investigated and filed a charge-sheet, and the plaintiff failed to prove that the report was false to the defendant's knowledge or that the prosecution was launched without reasonable and probable cause. Mere acquittal in the criminal case was not sufficient to fasten civil liability for malicious prosecution.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove malicious prosecution and was not entitled to damages.

---