Malicious prosecution requires reasonable and probable cause; a complaint made after honest enquiry was protected, but suspicion alone was not.

An action for malicious prosecution requires proof of prosecution by the defendant, termination in the plaintiff's favour, absence of reasonable and probable cause, and malice. On the facts stated, the court held that the complaint against Ghani Sahib was supported by credible information, enquiry, legal advice and police investigation, so there was reasonable and probable cause and no malice; the decree in his favour could not stand. By contrast, the accusation against Peria Mohammad Rowthar rested only on suspicion, with no substantive evidence of instigation or active participation, so reasonable and probable cause was lacking and malice was found; the damages award in his favour was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the defendant had reasonable and probable cause and was free from malice in setting the criminal law in motion against Ghani Sahib; (ii) Whether the same ingredients were established against Peria Mohammad Rowthar.

Issue (i): Whether the defendant had reasonable and probable cause and was free from malice in setting the criminal law in motion against Ghani Sahib.

Analysis: To sustain an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must show prosecution by the defendant, termination in the plaintiff's favour, absence of reasonable and probable cause, and malice. On the facts, the defendant had information that money entrusted to his agent had not been paid to the mutt and temple, that the agent had gone to Ghani Sahib's house, and that further enquiries supported the suspicion of instigation. The defendant did not act on mere suspicion alone, but after enquiry, consultation with counsel, and police investigation. The Court found no proof of animus, indirect motive, or reckless conduct against Ghani Sahib.

Conclusion: The prosecution against Ghani Sahib was supported by reasonable and probable cause and was not actuated by malice; the decree in his favour could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the same ingredients were established against Peria Mohammad Rowthar.

Analysis: As regards Peria Mohammad Rowthar, the material only showed that he accompanied the agent to the vakil's house. There was no substantive evidence connecting him with any instigation or active role in the alleged offence. The inference of guilt was held to be conjectural, and the defendant's complaint against him was treated as based on suspicion rather than on reasonable grounds. The Court found malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause.

Conclusion: The prosecution against Peria Mohammad Rowthar lacked reasonable and probable cause and was actuated by malice; the award of damages in his favour was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in relation to Ghani Sahib and failed in relation to Peria Mohammad Rowthar, resulting in a mixed outcome with costs following the respective results.

Ratio Decidendi: In a malicious prosecution action, the defendant is protected where the complaint was made after honest and reasonable enquiry on credible information and without malice, but liability follows where the accusation rests only on suspicion without a factual basis showing reasonable and probable cause.

---