Malicious Prosecution:

DearAssumi  Sir,

It has to be proved that the plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the prosecution complaint of. Even though the proceedings terminate in favour of the plaintiff, he may suffer damage as a result of the prosecution. The damages may not necessarily be pecuniary. Acc to HOLT C.J. ‘ s classic analysis in Savile v. Robert1899) 1 Raym 374
 there could be three sort of damages any one of which could be sufficient to support any action of malicious prosecution.

1) The damage to a man’s fame as where the matter whereof he is accused is scaldalous
2) The damage done to a person as where man is put to a danger of losing his life , limb or liberty
3) The damage to a man’s property as where is forced to expend money in necessary charges , to acquit himself of the crime of which he is accused

The damage must also be the reasonable and propable results of malicious prosecution and not too remote. In assessing damage the court to some extent would have to consider
1) The nature of the offence the plaintiff was charged of
2) The inconvenience to which the plaintiff was charged to
3) Monetary loss and
4) The status and prosecution of the person prosecuted 

Vishweshwar Shankarrao Deshmukh and Anr v. Narayan Vithoba Patil{2005(2)BomCR491}
Facts of the case
The plaintiff was the sarpanch of the village Shirputi in the year 1980 and the defendant no. 1 was in the service as a Gram sewak under the Zila Parishad and the defendant no.2 was a teacher in a school run by the Zila Parishad. The plaintiff contended that he made several reports against the defendants for their misconduct. The report was made against defendant no.1 for his misbehavior, defalcation and forgery of accounts and also against defendant no.2 for his absence from duties and other irregularities. It is contended that both the defendants then hatched a conspiracy to involve the plaintiff in a criminal conspiracy and such that the defendant no.1 had lodged an F.I.R. with the police that was assaulted by the plaintiff while he was discharging his duties. On the basis of the F.I.R and investigation done by the police, criminal proceedings were launched against the plaintiff.. The plaintiff was acquitted of the charges against him. It is contended that on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the defendant no.1 , plaintiff was arrested bt the police and the criminal proceeding against him was with malicious intention on the part of the defendants. The prosecution was launched without any reasonable cause and due to the false prosecution, there was a loss to his prestige and reputation and his status was lowered down in the society being a sarpanch and a politician.

DECISION
The court decided that the plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted by the defendants without any reasonable and propable cause , and therefore they are liable to pay damages worth Rs 12,500.00 to the plaintiff.