JUDGMENT : The suit is filed for damages towards Malicious Prosecution and defamation suffered by the plaintiff. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows: The plaintiff is a famous Cine Artist and he had two wives and eight children. According to the plaintiff, the defendant who introduced herself as the plaintiff's admirer over telephonic conversation expressed her desire to meet him in person. The plaintiff also obliged the defendant's request to meet her in person as per customary practice. Taking advantage of this, the defendant secretly obtained information about the plaintiff's shooting locations and started to meet him under some pretext or other and also requested the plaintiff to render help to meet her livelihood. On humanitarian consideration, the plaintiff rendered help to the defendant. (ii) While so, the defendant lodged a complaint under Section 376, 417 and 506 (II) of the IPC claiming that the plaintiff had raped her when she lost consciousness after consuming the juice given by the plaintiff and she became pregnant and gave birth to a female child. Based on this complaint, the plaintiff was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, he was also convicted. In appeal, this Court, while acquitting the plaintiff, directed him to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- apart from the fine amount of Rs.3,25,000/-. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the plaintiff against the said judgment was dismissed. According to the plaintiff, the defendant already married one Shiv Suresh Mishra and she also filed divorce petition against him. The defendant had instituted the above false complaint, that too, with malice in order to lower the plaintiff's reputation. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the above suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution and defamation. 3. The case of the defendant in nutshell is as follows: The suit itself is not maintainable as the same has been filed after full fledged trial in a Criminal case filed by the defendant. The present suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution is nothing but a harassment and an abuse the process of law. Besides in S.C.No.579 of 2000, the plaintiff was being prosecuted under due process of law. According to the defendant, the suit is bad by non joinder of parties since the plaintiff had failed to implead the State represented by Inspector of Police, Vadapalani, who only prosecuted the plaintiff. Besides in S.C.No.579 of 2000, the plaintiff was being prosecuted under due process of law. According to the defendant, the suit is bad by non joinder of parties since the plaintiff had failed to implead the State represented by Inspector of Police, Vadapalani, who only prosecuted the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also committed an act of Contempt of Court as he failed to deposit the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- as ordered by this Court in the appeal. The suit is barred by limitation. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the above pleadings, this Court, vide order dated 30.08.2013 has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages against the defendant for prosecuting the plaintiff maliciously? 2. What is the quantum of compensation suffered by the plaintiff? 3. Whether the State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police R-2 Kodampakkam Police Station is necessary party in this suit? 4. To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to? 5. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was marked. The details of the documents are hereunder:- Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff: S. No Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. P-1 29.04.2008 Certified copy of police complaint lodged by the defendant 2. P-2 23.07.2007 Photocopy of the Judgment in C.A.No.284 of 2001, High Court, Chennai 3. P-3 25.02.2008 Certified copy of the order in SLP 4. P-4 30.01.1995 Certified copy of the petition in OP.No.99 of 1995, Family Court, Chennai 5. P-5 28.03.2003 to 13.12.2004 Certified copy of defendant's deposition in OS.No.97 of 1999 6. P-6 - Photocopies of Appeal documents filed before High Court 7. P-7 - Letter (Diary Page September 1997) 8. P-8 17.10.1994 Photocopy of the telegram written by Arun Sharma to Usha Misra 9. P-5 28.03.2003 to 13.12.2004 Certified copy of defendant's deposition in OS.No.97 of 1999 6. P-6 - Photocopies of Appeal documents filed before High Court 7. P-7 - Letter (Diary Page September 1997) 8. P-8 17.10.1994 Photocopy of the telegram written by Arun Sharma to Usha Misra 9. P-9 20.10.1994 Photocopy of the telegram written by Arun Sharma to Usha Misra 10 P-10 20.10.1994 Photocopy of the telegram written by Arun Sharma to Usha Misra 11 P-11 22.05.1998 Certified copy of notarised declaration of the defendant addressed to Commissioner of Police along with the covering letter 12 P-12 07.02.2008 Original police notice to the plaintiff 13 P-13 21.07.2009 Letter sent by Regional Passport Office to the plaintiff 14 P-14 - Certified copy of marriage invitation 15 P-15 16.08.2005 Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.97/1999 Principal Family Court, Chennai. Witnesses examined on the side of the defendants D.W.1 Sneha Sharma 6. Heard, Mr. A.R. Nixon, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. G.Rajkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant and perused the records. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is the famous Cine Artist and he has family and high reputation in the society. The defendant, who introduced herself as the plaintiff's admirer, had telephonic conversation and frequently started visiting his shooting location. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that taking advantage of such acquaintance, she started threatening the plaintiff to pay money to her. Thereafter, she lodged a false complaint under Section 376, 417 and 506(ii) of the IPC alleging that the plaintiff raped her and she became pregnant and that the plaintiff threatened her to abort the child. Based on the said complaint, the plaintiff was arrested on 11.12.1998 and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the plaintiff was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1½ years for the offence under Section 376 (1) IPC. Similarly, for the offence under Section 417 IPC, the plaintiff was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1½ months. 8. Similarly, for the offence under Section 417 IPC, the plaintiff was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1½ months. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that in the appeal filed by the plaintiff in C.A.No.284 of 2001, this Court, while acquitting him has held that the allegation made by the defendant has not been established and that the evidence of the defendant in previous proceedings and the evidence before this Court, clearly show that she has initiated prosecution with malice. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that due to the said malicious prosecution, the plaintiff, being the Cine Actor and having high reputation in the society, had suffered irreparable loss. It is the also the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the specific allegation made by the defendant that she was raped by the plaintiff is found to be false. Further, the allegation that at the time of alleged occurrence, she was unmarried is also found to be false. In fact, the defendant has already married one Shiv Suresh Mishra and she has also filed divorce petition against him. All these facts clearly indicate that the plaintiff was unnecessarily dragged into the prosecution. Hence, the learned counsel for the plaintiff prayed for damages. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that the SLP filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal was dismissed only in the year 2008. Since the suit has been filed by the plaintiff immediately after the dismissal of the SLP, it is well within the period of limitation. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied on the judgment reported in 2016 (1) CTC 257 (S.VATSALA V. K.S.MOHAN AND OTHERS) to substantiate his contention. 10. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that the suit itself is barred by limitation as the plaintiff has filed the suit only in the year 2010 whereas the prosecution was terminated as early as on 23.02.2008 in C.A.No.284 of 2001. It is contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff herein was acquitted only on the ground of benefit of doubt. It is contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff herein was acquitted only on the ground of benefit of doubt. Even while acquitting the plaintiff in the criminal appeal filed by him, this Court, after taking into consideration the female child born to the defendant and also the fact that the paternity of the plaintiff has been proved in the DNA test, directed the plaintiff to pay the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) to the defendant herein apart from the fine amount of Rs.3,25,000/- (Three lakhs twenty five thousand only). It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the prosecution has launched a case on the ground that under the pretext of marriage, the defendant had sexual intercourse with the plaintiff which made her pregnant. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot state that there was no reasonable or probable cause for launching prosecution. Hence, the learned counsel for the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. In support of his argument, the learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court reported in (1997) 1 MLJ 19 (THANGAVEL UDAYAR VS. R.K.RAJU MUDALIAR) as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 10 SCC 488 (D.VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER V. M.K.MOHAN KRISHNAMACHARI AND ANOTHER). 11. In the light of the above submissions, this Court recast the issues as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages against the defendant for prosecuting the plaintiff maliciously? 2. What is the quantum of compensation suffered by the plaintiff? 3. Whether the suit is barred by Limitation? 4. To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to? Issue Nos.1 and 2: 12. The suit has been laid for claiming damages for malicious prosecution said to have been launched by the defendant herein. The main averment in the plaint pleadings would got to show that the plaintiff had some intimacy with the defendant and used to render monetary help to her. Subsequently, the complaint has been lodged by the defendant for various offences under Sections 376, 417 and 506 (II) of IPC. It is also the admitted fact that the trial Court convicted the plaintiff herein for the offences under Section 376 (1) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1½ years. It is also the admitted fact that the trial Court convicted the plaintiff herein for the offences under Section 376 (1) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1½ years. The trial Court also found the plaintiff herein guilty under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1½ months. The above judgment was assailed by the plaintiff before this Court in C.A.No.284 of 2001. A copy of the judgment of the Criminal Court is exhibited as Ex.P2. 13. Though the judgment of the criminal Court is not binding on the Civil Court, the reasons mentioned in the judgment for acquitting the plaintiff herein can be looked into. This Court, in the above criminal appeal, after taking into consideration of the close proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant herein, has held that the defendant had given consent to have sexual intercourse with the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegation that she continued such relationship only on the promise of the plaintiff herein that he would marry her, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. When analysing the entire evidence, this Court has found that the consent of the defendant was voluntary and the same would not attract Section 90 of IPC. Therefore, it has been held that the charge under Section 376 IPC has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, the plaintiff was acquitted by this Court in other charges also. 14. It is also admitted fact that while acquitting the plaintiff herein, this Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the female child was born to the defendant herein and that the paternity of the plaintiff was clearly proved in the DNA Test conducted by the expert, has directed the plaintiff herein to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as damages, apart from the fine amount of Rs.3,25,000/- awarded by the trial Court. 15. It is curious note that the plaintiff himself voluntarily agreed to pay the above amount. However, as against the said direction to pay the sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, the plaintiff herein filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.MP.No.2929 of 2008 and the same was dismissed. 15. It is curious note that the plaintiff himself voluntarily agreed to pay the above amount. However, as against the said direction to pay the sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, the plaintiff herein filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.MP.No.2929 of 2008 and the same was dismissed. The copy of the judgment of the Apex Court is marked as Ex.P3. Ex.P7 is filed to show that the defendant has written a letter expressing love towards the plaintiff. The above facts also clearly indicate that there was some illegal intimacy between the plaintiff and the defendant for some time. 16. It is to be noted that the plaintiff in his own pleadings has stated that he has already married twice and he is having two children through his first wife and 6 children through his second wife. The person, who has already married twice and having 8 children, used to render monetary help to the defendant, who is totally unconnected with his religion, clearly show that their relationship is not a legal one. At any event, it is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has lodged complaint as if she was raped for the first time, whereas she has married one Suresh Misra in respect of which she has already filed a diverse proceedings. To prove the previous marriage of the defendant, some telegram has been marked as Exs.P8 to P.10. Certified copy of the marriage invitation is filed under Ex.P12. Ex.P15 is the decree passed in O.S.No.97 of 1999 by the principal Family Court, Chennai. 17. It is to be noted that to succeed a suit for malicious prosecution, the entire burden lies on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant has acted without any reasonable and probable cause. Besides, the plaintiff has to prove that he was prosecuted by the defendant and the same ended in his favour and that the defendant had acted with malice. 18. In this case, it is seen that the first information was lodged by the defendant, for various offences under Section 376, 417 and 506 (ii) IPC. Ex.P1, is the complaint said to have been lodged by the defendant. The certified copy of the complaint clearly show that the plaintiff took the defendant to various places and had sexual intercourse with her on the false promise that he would to marry her and that she became pregnant. Ex.P1, is the complaint said to have been lodged by the defendant. The certified copy of the complaint clearly show that the plaintiff took the defendant to various places and had sexual intercourse with her on the false promise that he would to marry her and that she became pregnant. In this regard, when the evidence of P.W.1 is analysed, it is seen that the plaintiff himself admitted that while the defendant gave birth to female child on 24.5.1998, he has paid the hospital bills. Further the evidence of D.W.1 is carefully perused, she has also admitted that she has given the complaint at the instance of her father. It is to be noted that this affidavit came to be executed by the defendant when the plaintiff was in jail and during the pendency of his bail application. The said affidavit has not been taken into consideration by the lower Court. Whereas this Court while disposing the appeal, considered the above affidavit and held that offence has not been made out as alleged by the defendant but, however there was continuous illegal relationship between the parties. 19. In the cross examination dated 02.07.2014, the defendant has admitted that what she has stated in Ex.P11 is true. But subsequently, on 23.07.2014, in the cross examination, she has pleaded ignorance about the same affidavit. It is to be noted that the affidavit pressed into service even during investigation, but the same was negatived by the trial Court. Merely because the contents of the affidavit are admitted by the defendant, it cannot be concluded that she had lodged complaint maliciously against the plaintiff. The above facts clearly indicate that the child was born to the defendant through the plaintiff which was also confirmed in the DNA test. Though the relationship between the parties would be voluntarily and the defendant had consented for such intercourse with the plaintiff, the complaint came to be lodged only when the dispute arose between the parties for maintaining the child and acquiring the legal status. 20. It is the contention of the defendant that from the very beginning she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the plaintiff on the false promise that he would marry her. Though the consent may be valid at the relevant point, the injury caused to the defendant affected the life of the child also. 20. It is the contention of the defendant that from the very beginning she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the plaintiff on the false promise that he would marry her. Though the consent may be valid at the relevant point, the injury caused to the defendant affected the life of the child also. When the defendant was on the view that such act on the part of the plaintiff was against her wish, she launched prosecution. Therefore, malice intention cannot be attributed, particularly, when a criminal proceedings culminated in acquittal of the plaintiff only in the appeal stage on the ground that the charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The plaintiff has not given any evidence, as if there was no basis for complaint itself. In fact, the child born to the defendant was also considered by this Court, while disposing the criminal appeal and also found that plaintiff alone is responsible for that. DNA test is almost the conclusive nature of the paternity and the same also found against the plaintiff. Further, a direction was also given to the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-. 21. The above facts clearly reveal that at the time of launching complaint, there was a reasonable ground for the defendant to launch such prosecution. She bona fidely believed that offence has been committed against her. Therefore, it cannot be stated that she lodged a complaint without any reasonable or probable case. What could be done by the woman victim against the dominant personalities was only to lodge complaint to the concerned authorities. Therefore, the prosecution has proceeded on the basis of the statement made by her and investigated the matter and charge sheeted him and in fact, succeeded before the Criminal Court by establishing the fact that the plaintiff was responsible for child's birth. That being the position, it cannot be stated at any stretch of imagination that there was no probable reason or cause for giving complaint at the relevant time. 22. In this regard, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 976 (WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY Vs. DILEEP KUNAR RAY), wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “'.. .. .. 22. In this regard, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 976 (WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY Vs. DILEEP KUNAR RAY), wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “'.. .. .. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION" is a prosecution on some charge of crime which is wilful, wanton, or reckless, or against the prosecutor's sense of duty and right, or for ends he knows or its bound to know are wrong and against the dictates of public policy. “In malicious prosecution there are two essential elements, namely, that no probable cause existed for instituting the prosecution or suit complained of, and that such prosecution or suit terminated in some way favorably to the defendant therein. "When it comes to the knowledge of anybody that a crime has been committed, a duty is laid on that person as a citizen of the country, to state to the authorities what he knows respecting the commission of the crime, and if he states, only what he knows and honestly believes he cannot be subjected to an action of damages merely because it turns out that the person as to whom he has given the information is after all not guilty of the crime. In such cases to establish liability the pursuer must show that the informant acted from malice, i.e., 'not in discharge of his public duty but from an illegitimate motive, and must also prove that the statements were made or the information given without any reasonable grounds of belief, or other information given without probable cause; “The performance of a duty imposed by law, such as the institution of a prosecution as a necessary condition precedent to a civil action, does not constitute "malice". (Abbott v. Refuge Assurance Co., (1962) 1 QB 432). .. ..” 23. Though, as already discussed, the finding of the Criminal Court is not binding on the Civil Court, the judgment itself is a fact, which cannot be ignored altogether. The judgment of the Criminal Court also reveals that the plaintiff was acquitted since charge under Section 376 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That means, only the benefit of doubt was extended to the plaintiff. It is for the Court to determine whether the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt or not. The judgment of the Criminal Court also reveals that the plaintiff was acquitted since charge under Section 376 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That means, only the benefit of doubt was extended to the plaintiff. It is for the Court to determine whether the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt or not. One cannot expect the first informant to lodge compliant only when the charges levelled leads to proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court hold that there was every reasonable cause for launching the complaint against the plaintiff in this case. Accordingly, the issues are answered. Issue Nos.3 and 4: 24. It is further to be noted that the issue of limitation is the legal issue. Under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, suit can be dismissed even though the limitation has not been set up in the defence. This suit has been filed claiming damages for malicious prosecution. For filing such suit, specific period of one year limitation is provided under Article 74 of the Limitation Act. But the time begin to run from the date, when the plaintiff was acquitted or when the prosecution is otherwise terminated. 25. It is to be noted, that prosecution was terminated in this case as early as on 23.07.2007. This Court in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2001 has acquitted the accused/ plaintiff. The limitation commenced from the date of the termination of the prosecution. Therefore, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 23.07.2008. Even the period of pendency of criminal appeal, has been excluded, the suit ought to have been filed within the period of one year as stated above. But the present suit has been presented before the Court only on 18.10.2010 beyond the period of limitation period as provided under the Limitation Act. 26. But, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the plaintiff that he has filed SLP challenging the damages awarded by this Court in Criminal Appeal and that the SLP was dismissed only in the year 2008, and, therefore, the suit has been filed within the time. It is to be noted that the SLP was dismissed on 25.02.2008. SLP has been admittedly filed only to challenge the damages awarded by this Court and not against the findings of the Criminal Court. It is to be noted that the SLP was dismissed on 25.02.2008. SLP has been admittedly filed only to challenge the damages awarded by this Court and not against the findings of the Criminal Court. Even assuming that the above proceedings are also continuous proceedings of the criminal appeal, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 25.02.2009. Whereas the suit has been filed in the year 2010. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, the vague attempt made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff by placing reliance of the judgment reported in 2016 1 CTC 257 (S.VATSALA V. K.S.MOHAN AND OTHERS) stating that three years Limitation provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply is not sustainable. 27. It is to be noted that Article 137 comes into picture only for filing an application, for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere under this Act. Therefore, the contention of the leaned counsel has no legs to stand. Whereas for filing the suit for damages, for malicious prosecution specific Period of limitation is provided under Art. 74 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this Court hold that suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as barred by law of Limitation. 28. In the result, the suit is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.