JUDGMENT : 1.The defendant in a suit for damages on account of Malicious prosecution is the appellant. The plaintiff sought for total damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- under two heads from the defendant. Under the first head plaintiff claimed damages of Rs.50,000/- for injury sustained by him on account of false registration of Ext.A2 Crime No. 878/2016 of Harbour Police Station on 10.08.2016 and its conduct till the date of acceptance of Ext.A4 Refer Report by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Kochi on 18.04.2018 . Under the first head plaintiff claimed damages of Rs.50,000/- for injury sustained by him on account of the very same false allegations before the Departmental Authorities of the Cochin Port Trust, where both parties were working and the consequential delay in promotion, monetary loss and for mental agony, harassment and loss of reputation before the right thinking persons in the society. 2.The Trial Court decreed the suit in part granting damages of Rs.50,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the defendant under the first head. Though the defendant filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court dismissed the same confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 3.I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Litto Varghese Palathingal, and also the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, who appeared on filing caveat. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no specific finding by the Trial Court as to the malice on the part of the defendant initiating the criminal proceedings. The learned counsel relied on the decision in Govindji Khona v. Damodran and Others [1969 KHC 120], and Joseph George v. K.John 2014 (1) KHC 648 to substantiate the legal preposition that in order to succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution four points are to be satisfied namely; (1) the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant, (2) the prosecution ended in the plaintiff's favour; (3) the defendants acted without reasonable and probable cause and (4) the defendant actuated by malice. The learned counsel contended that the third and fourth ingredients are absent in the present case. The learned counsel contended that the third and fourth ingredients are absent in the present case. The learned counsel further contended that the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, relied on the fact that the A4 Refer Report was accepted by the Criminal Court on 18.04.2018, but the defendant has approached before the Sessions Court challenging Ext.A6 order of the Criminal Court and the same is pending consideration and hence it could be said that the criminal proceedings are concluded in favour of the plaintiff. The delay in filing the complaint before the Police is well explained by the defendant in her examination that she wanted to settle the issue, and hence, the complainant was not submitted to the Police initially. 5.Ext.A4 Refer Report was made by the Police only on account of the fact that the incident did not happen in public view and not on the finding that no such incident happened. Since relief under the second head is not granted, there could not be any basis for granting relief under the first head. There is no adjudication with respect to the amount awarded by the Trial Court. The evidence clearly revealed that the defendant had every reasonable cause to initiate criminal prosecution against the plaintiff and only on account of the inability of the defendant to bring witnesses to substantiate her case before the Departmental Authorities and Police, it could not be treated that she initiated a false complaint against plaintiff. 6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that initially, the defendant submitted Ext.A1 complaint before the Internal Committee of Port Trust, and the Internal Committee conducted an enquiry and passed Ext.A11 Report on 21.12.2015 finding that no such incident happened. Thereafter, the defendant caused to register Ext.A2 FIR on 10.08.2016 against the plaintiff for the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. The evidence would clearly prove that the defendant was improving her case from stage to stage and delaying the proceedings to the maximum possible. The pendency of the criminal case prejudiced the promotion prospectus of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had to approach this Court by filing Crl.M.C for expediting the matter, and only after the direction of this Court in Ext.A3, Police submitted Ext.A4 Refer Report to the Court 10.02.2017. The pendency of the criminal case prejudiced the promotion prospectus of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had to approach this Court by filing Crl.M.C for expediting the matter, and only after the direction of this Court in Ext.A3, Police submitted Ext.A4 Refer Report to the Court 10.02.2017. Thereafter the defendant started dragging the proceedings till the retirement of the plaintiff from service on 30.04.2018. The learned Magistrate passed Ext.A6 Order accepting Ext.A4 Refer Report on 18.04.2018 since in spite of repeated adjournments by the defendant, she failed to file the Protest complaint. The aforesaid facts would clearly revealed that the defendant initiated the prosecution against the plaintiff without any reasonable cause. 7.I have considered the rival contentions. 8.Ext.A2 FIR was registered on 10.08.2016 with respect to an incident allegedly happened on 20.11.2015 at 12.30 PM inside the office of Port Trust. Plaintiff was the Senior Deputy Chief Accountant and the defendant was a subordinate to the plaintiff working as Senior office Attendant. The defendant submitted Ext.A1 complaint to the Internal Committee on 20.11.2015 itself. In the Ext.A1 complaint the specific allegation is that the plaintiff belonged to Nair community who had knowledge that the defendant belonged to scheduled caste called her with cast name and abused her and that there are witnesses to the incident as it was made in front of several other employees. The Internal Committee conducted enquiry and as per Ext.A11 Report, it is found that no such incident happened. Thereafter only on 10.08.2016, the defendant caused to register Ext. A2 FIR. The allegations in Ext. A2 FIR would reveal that she has improved here version from the earlier one. In the improved version, she has stated that she was called a prostitute also. No such allegation is there in the original complaint. The Police conducted investigation into the matter and Ext.A4 Refer Report was submitted to the Criminal Court. The Police could not find out any witness to the incident as claimed by the defendant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Ext.A4 Refer Report was made only for the reason that there was no public view to attract the offence is not correct. It is specifically stated that there is no witness to the allegation of calling cast name and it is revealed in the investigation that only a dispute arose in the office. It is specifically stated that there is no witness to the allegation of calling cast name and it is revealed in the investigation that only a dispute arose in the office. If there was bonafides on the part of the defendant, she would have caused to initiate the prosecution immediately on the happening of the alleged incident. Even believing her version that she was expecting to settle the matter, she should have initiated criminal prosecution immediately after Ext.A11 Report of the Internal Committee holding that no such incident happened. With much-unexplained delay, Ext.A2 FIR was caused to be registered. Even though the defendant alleged that there were several complaints against the plaintiff, the defendant could not produce even a single complaint against the defendant. Even after the submission of the Refer Report before the Court on 10.12.2017, it is in evidence that the defendant had been dragging the proceedings praying time to file Protest Complaint. She could successfully keep the criminal proceedings alive till the retirement of the plaintiff. Ext.A6 Order accepting Ext.A4 Refer Report was passed on 18.04.2018 whereas the plaintiff retired on 30.04.2018. Hence, from the conduct of the defendant as well as the materials on record, it is clearly revealed that the defendant initiated the Criminal Prosecution without any reasonable cause against the plaintiff. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since Ext.A6 order accepting the Ext.A4 refer report dated 18.04.2018 is challenged before the Sessions Court and the same is pending before the Sessions Court. Even though no material was produced in this regard from the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is revealed that such a challenge was made only in the year 2022, whereas the order was passed in the year 2018, which is another reason to suspect the bonafides of the defendant. 9.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant it is well settled that the aforesaid four ingredients are to be proved in order to give relief in a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no specific finding by the Trial Court that there is malice on the part of the defendant in initiating the criminal complaint. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no specific finding by the Trial Court that there is malice on the part of the defendant in initiating the criminal complaint. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that such findings are specifically made in Paragraph 14 of the Trail Court judgment. 10.Of course, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the frivolous complaint was found with respect to the complaint before the Departmental Authority. But in the succeeding portion of the very same paragraph, the Trial Court has specifically found that from the available evidence, it can be ascertained that the defendant preferred a baseless complaint before the Internal Committee of Cochin Port Trust as well before the Harbour police, Ernakulam with an intention to cause defamation and disreputation to the plaintiff. In view of the said specific findings supported by the materials on records, I am of the view that the ingredients No. 3 and 4 are also available in the present case. 11.The further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the relief under the second head is not granted, there could not be any basis for granting relief under the first head. It is seen from the plaint that the first relief is made with respect to the malicious prosecution, and the second relief is with respect to the damages on account of loss of promotion, etc. In a suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution, damages can be granted when it is proved that criminal prosecution is made without any reasonable cause. The denial of the damages on account of loss of promotion, etc. claimed in the second relief has no bearing with respect to relief No.1. 12.The learned counsel further contended that there is no adjudication with respect to the amount awarded by the Trial Court. Taking into account of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the amount granted by the Trial Court is fair and reasonable. 13.No substantial question of law arises in the matter. I do not find any ground or reason to interfere. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.