Malicious prosecution requires proof of malice and lack of reasonable cause; a closed criminal case alone is not enough.

To establish malicious prosecution, the claimant must prove institution of proceedings, termination in his favour, absence of reasonable and probable cause, malice, and resulting damage. On the facts discussed, the complaint arose from a partnership dispute and a disputed debit entry, and the court noted that independent evidence was lacking to show that the defendant had knowingly made a false complaint or forged the pay slip signature. The investigating officer and handwriting expert were not examined, and a final report alone was insufficient to prove falsity or want of reasonable cause. Mere closure of the criminal case did not establish malice, and the damages claim for malicious prosecution and defamation failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant's complaint and consequent criminal process were instituted without reasonable and probable cause and with malice so as to constitute malicious prosecution and entitle the plaintiff to damages.

Analysis: The plaintiff had to establish the essential ingredients of malicious prosecution, namely institution of proceedings by the defendant, termination in the plaintiff's favour, absence of reasonable and probable cause, malice, and resulting damage. The complaint arose out of a genuine partnership dispute and a debit entry in the defendant's account. The defendant's grievance was that her signature on the pay slip appeared forged and that the amount was transferred to the plaintiff's concern. The Court held that the plaintiff did not prove, by independent evidence, that the defendant had in fact signed the pay slip and then made a knowingly false complaint. The investigating officer and handwriting expert were not examined, and the final report by itself was insufficient to establish falsity of the complaint or absence of reasonable cause. Mere closure of the criminal case did not by itself prove malice.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove malicious prosecution or defamation, and the claim for damages was rejected.

---