Narasinga Row Vs. Muthaya Pillai

Narasinga Row vs Muthaya Pillai

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 23, 1902

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/776429

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/776429
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Jul 23, 1902
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narasinga Row

Respondent

Muthaya Pillai

Legal References

Reported In: (1902)12MLJ389

Excerpt

- 1. we think the decree of the appellate court should be reversed.2. the only person who can be sued in an action for malicious prosecution is the person who prosecutes. in this case though the 1st defendant may have instituted criminal proceedings before the police, he certainly did not prosecute the plaintiff. he merely gave information to the police, and the police after investigation appear to have thought fit to prosecute the plaintiff. the 1st defendant is not responsible for their act, and no action lies against him for malicious prosecution (see judgment in s.a. no. 805 see 12 m.l.j. 349.3. we must reverse the decree of the subordinate judge and restore that of the additional district munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate court.

Full Judgment

1. We think the decree of the appellate Court should be reversed.

2. The only person who can be sued in an action for malicious prosecution is the person who prosecutes. In this case though the 1st defendant may have instituted criminal proceedings before the police, he certainly did not prosecute the plaintiff. He merely gave information to the police, and the police after investigation appear to have thought fit to prosecute the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is not responsible for their act, and no action lies against him for malicious prosecution (see judgment in S.A. No. 805 See 12 M.L.J. 349.

3. We must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the Additional District Munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate Court.

Same Parties Narasinga Row vs Muthaya Pillai Same Subject Criminal

Criminal