A Gurgaon Court has ruled that a husband acquitted under IPC 498A can pursue damages for malicious prosecution, even if his wife appeals the acquittal, dismissing objections over court fee and cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
A Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Gurugram dismissed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) that sought rejection of the plaint in a case filed by Gursaranlal Awasthi against the Secretary, Home Department and others.
The order, passed on 13 August 2025 by Civil Judge Manish Kumar, allows the malicious prosecution suit to continue for trial.
The case stems from a criminal complaint lodged by Defendant No. 2 against the plaintiff under Sections 498A, 406, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with FIR No. 72 dated 18 May 2009.
Also Read: Delhi High Court: “Just Asking for Dowry is NOT a Crime Under Section 498A IPC”
The plaintiff, Gursaranlal Awasthi, was later acquitted by the trial court as the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
A Criminal Revision Petition (CRR No. 729/2018) is currently pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Following his acquittal, the plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking damages for malicious prosecution, alleging that the complaint was filed with malice and without reasonable cause. Defendant No. 2 challenged the maintainability of this suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Defendant’s Arguments
Defendant No. 2, represented by Advocate Rishi Raj Yadav, argued that:
- The plaintiff had concealed material facts and approached the court with unclean hands.
- No cause of action had arisen on the dates cited in the plaint.
- The criminal proceedings did not conclusively end in plaintiff’s favour since a revision petition was still pending.
- The plaintiff had not paid the ad valorem court fee on the claimed recovery amount, making the suit defective under the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Also Read: Taunts Over Complexion ‘Not Cruelty’ Under Section 498A, Says Bombay High Court
Plaintiff’s Stand
The plaintiff, represented by Advocate Kirti Sejwal, countered that:
- The suit was strictly for damages on account of malicious prosecution.
- Court fee in such cases is paid on a notional value, and the final ad valorem fee would be payable only on the decreed amount if damages are awarded.
- The plaint disclosed all necessary elements of a malicious prosecution suit: initiation of criminal proceedings by the defendant, acquittal in favour of the plaintiff, absence of reasonable cause, malice, and resultant damages.
Shri Manish Kumar, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, carefully examined the rival contentions and observed:
- Cause of Action – The plaint clearly discloses a cause of action as it alleges malicious prosecution following acquittal in a criminal case. Importantly, the Court emphasised that a husband once acquitted in IPC 498A can seek damages for malicious prosecution even if the wife has appealed the acquittal. The pendency of the revision petition before the High Court does not erase the fact of acquittal at the trial stage. Questions of concealment or falsity are issues of evidence to be tested at trial, not at the stage of Order VII Rule 11.
- Court Fee Issue – Referring to Section 6 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the Court held that in suits for unliquidated damages (such as malicious prosecution), plaintiffs are allowed to assign a tentative valuation and pay court fee accordingly. The court cited the precedent Amandeep Sidhu v. Ultratech Cement Limited & Others (MANU/PH/3125/2016), which clarifies that full ad valorem court fee becomes payable only when damages are quantified in the decree.
- Reliance on Other Cases – The Court noted that the judgments cited by Defendant No. 2, including Dr. Hem Raj Garg v. Punjab Relief Society and Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Pooja & Anr., were based on different facts and hence not applicable to the present case.
Also Read: Bar Association Held a Discussion on IPC Section 498A Misuse for Female Lawyers
Concluding that the plaint discloses a valid cause of action and is not barred for non-payment of court fees, the Court dismissed the defendant’s application.
The order stated,
“The application filed by Defendant No. 2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is found to be without merit. The plaint discloses a cause of action for malicious prosecution, and the issue of court fee does not warrant rejection of the plaint at this stage.”
The matter has now been adjourned to 20 November 2025 for filing of the written statement by Defendant No. 1, and fresh notices have been issued to Defendants No. 3 and 4.
Case Title: Gursaranlal Awasthi v. Secretary Home Department & Others
Read Attachment