Malicious prosecution claims require final acquittal and specific pleading of malice, improper motive, and lack of probable cause.

A suit for malicious prosecution is maintainable only after the criminal proceedings have finally terminated in the plaintiff's favour; where an acquittal is under appeal, the cause of action is not complete and the plaint is premature. The plaint must also plead specific facts showing malice, absence of probable cause, and an improper motive, not merely assert acquittal or general harassment. On the facts stated, the pleadings were insufficient on both grounds, so the suit could not be maintained and was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for compensation for malicious prosecution was premature during the pendency of the appeal against the plaintiff's acquittal; (ii) Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for malicious prosecution in the absence of specific averments of malice and improper motive.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for compensation for malicious prosecution was premature during the pendency of the appeal against the plaintiff's acquittal.

Analysis: Article 74 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes limitation to run from the date when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. The Court preferred the line of authority holding that where an acquittal is under challenge in appeal, the prosecution has not yet attained final termination for the purpose of a malicious prosecution action. It was held that permitting the suit to proceed before finality of the criminal appeal would be inconsistent with the nature of the cause of action and the requirement that the prosecution must have conclusively ended in the plaintiff's favour.

Conclusion: The suit was premature and the plaint was liable to rejection on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for malicious prosecution in the absence of specific averments of malice and improper motive.

Analysis: A claim for malicious prosecution requires more than a bare assertion of acquittal. The plaint must set out the ulterior purpose, absence of probable cause, and the malicious motive with some particulars. General allegations of harassment or humiliation, without facts showing why the defendant instituted the proceedings for an improper purpose, were held insufficient. The plaint contained no adequate averments explaining the alleged malice or the defendant's motive in prosecuting the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The plaint did not disclose a cause of action for malicious prosecution.

Final Conclusion: The suit could not be maintained and stood dismissed with costs because it was filed before final termination of the criminal proceedings and, independently, did not plead the essential ingredients of malicious prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for malicious prosecution is maintainable only after the criminal proceedings have finally terminated in the plaintiff's favour and the plaint must plead specific facts showing malice, absence of probable cause, and an improper motive.

---