Barasha Borah Bordoloi vs Diganta Borah
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
1
GAHC010100632024
2026:GAU-AS:12399
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RFA/30/2024
1. Barasha Borah Bordoloi
W/O Late Dharani Bordoloi,
R/O Bairagimath, Near Don Bocso School,
P.O.- Dibrugarh, Assam.
Present Address
R/O Amar Enclave,
Flat No. D-41, CID Bus Stop,
Survey Beltola,
P.S.- Hatigaon, Distrcit-Kamrup (M),
Assam.
…..Appellant
-Versus-
1. Diganta Borah
S/O Late Jonram Borah,
R/O Superintendent of Police,
Dhubri, Assam
Presently Holding the Post of Commissioner of
Police, Kamrup (M), Assam.
……Respondent
For Appellant Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, Advocate
:
For Respondent Mr. B. Dutta, Sr. Advocate
:
Mr. S. Deka, Advocate
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 1
2
Date of Hearing 31.07.2026
:
27.08.2026
Date of Judgment :
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, the learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. B. Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. S. Deka, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
has been preferred by the appellant, Smt. Barasha Borah Bordoloi,
challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2024 passed by
the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh in Title
Suit No. 70/2015, whereby the said suit filed by the present
appellant was dismissed on contest.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief,
are that the present appellant had filed a suit against the present
respondent before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh
claiming special and exemplary damages to the tune of
Rs. 5,25,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Twenty-Five Lakhs only) from
the present respondent for loss sustained by the appellant. The said
suit was registered as Title Suit No. 70/2015 before the Court of
learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh.
4. In the plaint filed by the present appellant before the Trial Court, it
was contended that the present appellant was employed as the
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 2
3
Deputy Superintendent of Excise in the Department of Excise,
Government of Assam at Gohpur, whereas, the respondent was
posted as the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri.
5. It was averred in the plaint that the present appellant came to know
the respondent for the first time in the year 2008 when the
respondent was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police (HQ)
at Dibrugarh and the appellant was posted as Inspector of Excise at
Dibrugarh. Thereafter, both of them were transferred to Tinsukia
District, and in the course of time, the relationship between them
became friendly and cordial.
6. It was stated in the plaint by the present appellant that on
27.03.2009, the respondent, taking advantage of the cordial
relationship between them, asked the appellant to come to Tinsukia
Police Guest House, and when she went there, he forcefully
outraged her modesty. It was further stated in the plaint that later
on, on 10.05.2009, the respondent again, taking advantage of the
fact that the appellant was alone at her home at Dibrugarh,
forcefully established physical relationship with her.
7. It is further averred that though the appellant contemplated of
lodging a complaint against the respondent before the authorities,
however, the respondent, by playing with her emotions, convinced
her not to do so, put her under constant fear, and by playing with
her emotions, continued to have physical relationship with her.
8. It is further contended in the plaint that such state of affairs
continued till the appellant could no longer bear the physical and
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 3
4
mental exploitation by the present respondent upon her, and as
such, she told her husband about the entire facts. It is contended
that her husband suggested her either to take recourse of law
against the present respondent or he would himself take such
recourse. Situated thus, the appellant tried to sort out the matter
amicably. However, the present respondent rather threatened her
that he would falsely implicate her and her family members in
various criminal cases if she approaches any higher authority.
9. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant approached the
Inspector General of Police of Eastern Range, namely, Dr. L. R.
Bishnoi, informing him about the incident. However, no action was
taken on her complaint, and the respondent was transferred to
Karimganj district as the Superintendent of Police of that district.
Thereafter, the appellant lodged a formal complaint against the
present respondent on 19.05.2011 before the Director General of
Police, Assam, alleging mental and physical exploitation of the
appellant by the present respondent.
10. The filing of formal complaint by the present appellant alarmed the
respondent, and as such, he lodged a false and frivolous complaint
against the appellant on 30.08.2011 before the Officer-in-Charge of
Karimganj Police Station. It is pertinent to mention herein that being
Superintendent of Police of the said district, the said police station
was under his direct superintendence and control.
11. In the First Information Report filed by the present respondent, it
was alleged that the present appellant along with her husband, Shri
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 4
5
Dharani Bordoloi, and one Deepanjali Dutta, advocate of Dibrugarh
Bar Association, and Smt. Upasana Gogoi, have entered into a
criminal conspiracy to extort money from the present respondent by
putting him and his family in the fear of injury to their reputation.
On the basis of the said first information report, the Officer-in-
Charge of Karimganj Police Station registered Karimganj P.S. Case
No. 483/2011 under Section 120B/384/385/389/353 of the Indian
Penal Code read with Section 66A of the Information Technology
Act, 2008.
12. It is also alleged in the plaint that though the police station case
was registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the present
respondent, however, no action was taken on the complaint filed by
the appellant before the Director General of Police against the
present respondent, in spite of serious allegations made therein
against the present respondent.
13. It is further contended in the plaint that only after the media took
up the cause of the present appellant, the complaint filed by her
before the Director General of Police was registered as CID Case No.
95/2011 under Section 341/354/506 of the Indian Penal Code, after
a lapse of about 5 months from the date of filing of the complaint
by her.
14. It is further contended in the plaint that on filing of the FIR by the
present respondent against her, the police party from Karimganj
police Station came to the residence of the appellant at Dibrugarh in
early hours on 29.10.2011 and made certain search without
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 5
6
disclosing anything and seized three numbers of Nokia Mobile sets
along with Sim cards, an I-pad and a laptop, about which there was
no complain in the FIR and issued a copy of the seizure list to the
appellant. It is contended in the plaint that when the said search
was made by Karimganj police, the respondent was the
Superintendent of Police of the Karimganj district, and it was at his
behest that the appellant was harassed by searching her house by
the officials of Karimganj Police Station. Thereafter, the appellant
moved Gauhati High Court seeking bail in the said case, which was
granted to her.
15. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ
petition seeking transfer of the investigation of Karimganj P.S. Case
No. 483/2011 to some other independent investigating agency. The
said writ petition was registered as W.P.(C) No 931/2012. The
appellant and her husband also preferred a criminal petition for
quashing of the first information report dated 30.08.2011 filed by
the respondent. The said criminal petition was registered as
Criminal Petition No. 554/2011. This Court by order dated
26.06.2012, dismissed the said criminal petition. However, a
direction was issued to the Inspector General of Police (Prosecution)
to ensure a fair and impartial investigation by the CID in both the
cases.
16. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.06.2012 passed in the
aforementioned criminal petition, the present appellant preferred a
Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India, under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court, by its order
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 6
7
dated 30.09.2013, directed that in both the cases, that is one filed
by the appellant and another filed by the respondent, the
investigation should be carried out by one officer, who should be of
a rank higher than that of the respondent. The SLP filed by the
present appellant was disposed of by the Apex Court on 27.10.2014
after taking note that in both the cases, the final report was
submitted by the investigating agency, giving liberty to both the
parties to raise objection as regards the final reports in accordance
with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
17. The appellant, after coming to know about the final report given in
respect of CID P. S. Case No. 95/2011 (which was registered on the
basis of complaint filed by the present appellant), had filed
objection before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kamrup (M), and same is still pending before the Court. Whereas, in
Karimganj P.S. Case No. 483/2011, though the present respondent
filed his objections, same were rejected by the Court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj by its order dated 15.05.2015,
and the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer was
accepted.
18. The present appellant has further contended in her plaint before the
Trial Court that the FIR dated 30.08.2011 was lodged by the present
respondent against her in order to wreak vengeance against her for
filing complaint dated 19.05.2011 before the Director General of
Police, Assam. It was further contended that the allegation of
extortion made by the present respondent against the present
appellant was found to be completely false.
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 7
8
19. It was further alleged that the present respondent, by misusing his
official position, sent a police party from Karimganj to Dibrugarh for
making search in the house of the present appellant on the basis of
a false FIR dated 30.08.2011, and same has caused immense
damage to reputation of the appellant and her family members.
20. It was further contended that the false criminal charges made by
the respondent against the present appellant has led to loss of her
reputation and dignity at her workplace and the appellant, till
acceptance of final report in Karimganj P.S. Case No. 483/2011, had
to live a life full of shame and humiliation, and same has caused
unbearable trauma to the appellant. It is also alleged that the
appellant suffered due to the fact that she was emotionally and
physically exploited, and thereafter humiliated by initiating a false
and malicious prosecution.
21. The present respondent had contested the Title Suit No. 70/2015 by
filing written statement. In his written statement apart from taking
usual defence of lack of maintainability and absence of cause of
action for suit, he pleaded complete denial of allegations made by
the present appellant in her plaint, he denied the allegation of
outraging the modesty of the appellant by him, as well as the
allegation of forceful establishment of physical relationship by him
with the appellant.
22. It is also pleaded in the written statement that the present appellant
used to disturb the respondent by calling on his mobile phone and
by sending text messages every now and then. It is also stated in
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 8
9
the written statement that in order to achieve her goal, she hatched
a conspiracy in association with her husband and one Deepanjali
Dutta and one Upasana Gogoi by pressurizing the respondent to
come to an amicable settlement.
23. It is also stated in the written statement that the appellant, along
with her associates, started blackmailing the respondent by
threatening him to disclose publicly by fabricated and manufactured
messages, and, as such, the respondent was left with no other
option but to lodge an FIR in the Karimganj Police Station.
24. It was also contended that the search made by the Karimganj
Police Station in Karimganj P. S. Case No. 483/2011 was never
declared as unauthorized or illegal by any court of law. Rather, in
the Writ Petition No. 931/2012, which was filed by the appellant,
the High Court did not grant the relief which was sought for by the
present appellant.
25. It is also stated in the written statement that the protest petition
filed by the appellant in CID P.S. Case No. 95/2011 was rejected by
the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro) by its
order dated 11.12.2012, and the final report, which was submitted
in the said case, was accepted.
26. The respondent in his written statement has categorically denied
that he had maliciously tarnished the reputation, goodwill, and
image of the present appellant, by filing a false and frivolous
complaint. Rather, it is alleged that the acts and the conduct of the
present appellant has damaged the reputation of the respondent.
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 9
10
27. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has
framed the following issues:
i. Whether the suit is maintainable in law and in facts?
ii. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?
iii. Whether the defendant had maliciously prosecuted the
plaintiff under Karimganj P.S. Case No. 483/2011, causing
damage to her reputation?
iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed for?
v. To what reliefs the parties are entitled to?
28. In support of her case, the present appellant adduced the evidence
of four numbers of witnesses, including herself, and exhibited 17
documents. On the other hand, the present respondent did not
adduce any evidence to counter the case of the plaintiff. Ultimately,
by judgment and decree dated 29.02.2024 passed in Title Suit No.
70/2015, the Trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the present
appellant.
29. Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, the learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the Trial Court had erred in dismissing the suit filed
by the present appellant without taking into consideration the fact
that the witnesses for the plaintiff side have established that the FIR
by the present respondent in Karimganj P. S. Case No. 483/2011
was filed with a mala-fide intention and with an improper motive to
harass the appellant in order to wreak vengeance against her.
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 10
11
30. He further submits that the trial court failed to take into
consideration that the FIR lodged by the present respondent in
Karimganj P. S. Case No. 483/2011 was in fact a counterblast
against the complaint lodged by the present appellant before the
Director General of Police on 19.05.2011.
31. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Trial
Court has erred in not framing a specific issue as to whether due to
filing of a false and frivolous FIR against the present appellant by
the respondent, the present appellant had to suffer immense
trauma and damage to her reputation. He submits that the Trial
Court only considered the aspect as to whether the present
respondent subjected the appellant to malicious prosecution, that
too erroneously.
32. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Trial
Court has failed to take into consideration that by filing the FIR on
30.08.2011, without any reasonable cause, the respondent
wrongfully set the machinery of the criminal law into motion causing
injuries to the appellant. He submits that to maintain a suit for
damages for malicious prosecution, it is not at all necessary that the
criminal process initiated by the defendants should have reached a
stage where a plaintiff might have formally prosecuted and then
acquitted. He submits that the prosecution and the acquittal in strict
legal sense are not the condition required for maintaining a suit for
malicious prosecution. He submits that what is required is that the
criminal law was set in motion against the plaintiff, and she suffered
damages due to the initiation of the criminal law and ultimately that
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 11
12
process of criminal law ended in favour of the plaintiff. In support of
his submission the learned counsel for the appellant has cited a
ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of “Roop
Singh and Another Vs. Amarjeet Singh and Other” (2017)
reported in
4 ICC 516 .
33. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the final
report which was submitted in Karimganj P. S. Case No. 483/2011
by the Investigating Officer, it is apparent that no evidence was
found against the present appellant to implicate her under Sections
120B/384/385/389/353 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section
66A of the Information Technology Act, 2008. He submits that the
Trial Court failed to take into consideration this aspect as well as the
fact that the Criminal Law was maliciously set into motion against
the present appellant by the respondent causing trauma and harm
to reputation of the appellant which justifies payment of due
compensation to the present appellant by the respondent. The
learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, prays for setting aside
the impugned judgment and decree by reversing the same and
directing the respondent to pay the compensation as sought for by
the appellant for damages sustained by the appellant.
34. On the other hand, Mr. B. Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the
respondent has submitted that the facts involved in the instant case
portrays a story of love, betrayal and frustration. He submits that
the Trial Court has correctly dismissed the suit after considering the
materials on record including the evidence led by the plaintiff’s side
in the Title Suit No. 70/2015.
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 12
13
35. He submits that the Title Suit No. 70/2015 was mainly filed by the
present appellant seeking compensation on account of defamation
of the appellant due to alleged malicious prosecution by the present
respondent. He submits that the Trial Court has rightly framed issue
No. 3 in the aforesaid suit on the basis of pleading of both the
parties. He submits that the said issue takes cares of the contention
regarding damage to the reputation of the plaintiff as well as the
question regarding malicious prosecution.
36. The learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted that
during cross examination of the PW-1, she has admitted that she
sent one Dipanjali Dutta, Advocate to the defendant in the month of
August 2010 to talk to him regarding the issues between the
parties. He further submits that the appellant has also admitted that
she wrote two letters to the mother of the present respondent in
the year 2012 asking her to search out the ways to settle the matter
amicably outside the Court by playing a neutral role. He submits
that the final report which was exhibited as Exhibit-13 in the above-
mentioned title suit, it is clearly mentioned that the complainant
(i.e., the present appellant) made all possible attempts to restore
their earlier relationships. The learned senior counsel submits that,
however, when her attempts yielded no results, she filed the above-
mentioned title suit without any basis for the same. The learned
senior counsel for the respondent has also submitted that during
her cross-examination, as PW-1, on 18.09.2018, the appellant also
deposed that she has filed the suit both for getting compensation as
well as for settling the issues between her and the defendant.
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 13
14
37. The learned senior counsel for the respondent has further submitted
that the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit after taking into
consideration that the plaintiff (present appellant) failed to establish
as to before whom she was defamed as none has adduced evidence
regarding this aspect apart from the PW-1 herself. The learned
senior counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant has
not even prayed for any relief, in her plaint, for a declaration to the
effect that the respondent has maliciously prosecuted her the
lodging the FIR dated 30.08.2011 before the Karimganj Police
Station. He further submits that no declaration was sought for to
the effect that the allegations made in the FIR dated 30.08.2011 are
false, baseless, fabricated, concocted, malicious and defamatory. He
submits that under such circumstances the suit for damages filed by
the appellant is not maintainable and the Trial Court has committed
no wrong by dismissing the same.
38. The learned senior counsel for the respondent further submits that
for maintaining a suit for malicious prosecution, it is necessary for
the plaintiff to be prosecuted before a Court of law. However, he
submits that in the instant case, as final report has been submitted
in Karimganj P. S. Case No. 483/2011, no formal prosecution of the
appellant was initiated before a criminal court, hence, no case has
been made out by the appellant against the present respondent for
malicious prosecution.
39. The learned senior counsel for the respondent further submits that
it is evident from the materials on record that most of the
telephonic communication as well as SMS between the present
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 14
15
appellant and respondent were made at the behest of the present
appellant and when the respondent declined to receive phone calls
or reply to SMS, the appellant made several attempts to restore her
relationship with the present respondent. He submits that the
search at the residence of the appellant by police of Karimganj
Police Station in connection with Karimganj P. S. Case No. 483/2011
was in accordance with procedure for investigation mandated by
law and the appellant failed to show that it was abuse of authority
by the present respondent.
40. The learned senior counsel for the respondent further submits that
out of the four plaintiff’s witnesses examined by the present
appellant in the aforesaid suit, except the plaintiff herself none of
the witnesses deposed that he had formed an adverse opinion
about the reputation of the appellant on the basis of any action
taken with regard to lodging of FIR dated 30.08.2011 or
investigation carried out in connection with Karimganj P. S. Case No.
483/2011. He submits that the Trial Court has correctly dismissed
the suit as there is no credible evidence except that of the PW-1 to
show that the reputation of the appellant has been dented in any
manner.
41. He submits that in paragraph No. 10.35 to paragraph No. 10.39 of
the impugned judgment the Trial Court has rightly discussed the
evidence adduced by the plaintiff to come to the conclusion that the
present appellant has failed to establish that her reputation has
been lowered in the estimation of others. Hence, he submits that
there is no infirmity or irregularity committed by the Trial Court in
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 15
16
dismissing the Title Suit No. 70/2015 justifying any interference by
this Court. Hence, he submits that this appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
42. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for
both sides and have gone through the materials on record. I have
also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both
sides in support of their respective submissions.
43. On perusal of the plaint filed by the present appellant in Title Suit
No. 70/2015, it appears that the present appellant was aggrieved
mainly with the action of the respondent in filing the FIR on
30.08.2011, on the basis of which the Karimganj P.S. Case No.
483/2011 was registered. Her main contention in the plaint was that
the respondent set the machinery of criminal law in motion on
totally false and frivolous grounds, which has caused trauma and
humiliation to the appellant, and which has also maligned the
image, reputation, goodwill, and dignity of the appellant. However,
it appears that in the prayer portion of the plaint, the present
appellant had only prayed for a decree of damages against the
respondent to the tune of Rs. 5,25,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores
Twenty-Five Lakhs only) without seeking any declaration that the
respondent has maliciously prosecuted her or that the acts of the
respondent have defamed her or maligned her reputation or that it
caused trauma to her in any manner.
44. It also appears that though a decree of damages to the extent of
Rs. 5,25,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Twenty-Five Lakhs only) was
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 16
17
sought for, however, no justification has been given in the plaint as
to on what basis the quantum of compensation sought for has been
computed in the plaint so as to arrive at the figure of Rs.
5,25,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Twenty-Five Lakhs only).
45. Be that as it may, this Court is of considered opinion that by framing
Issue No. 3, the Trial Court has taken into consideration the crux of
the dispute between the parties as to whether the defendant had
maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff by instituting Karimganj P.S.
Case No. 483/2011, causing any damage to her reputation. This
Court is of considered opinion that since the basis of the alleged
trauma suffered by the appellant is the alleged malicious
prosecution by the respondent in lodging the FIR on 30.08.2011,
which led to the registration of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 483/2011,
as well as the alleged loss to her reputation due to the action of the
respondent, the Issue No. 3 framed by the Trial Court takes care of
the same. As such, the Trial Court may not be faulted with in not
framing a separate issue regarding the plea raised by the appellant
about her defamation or maligning of reputation by the acts of the
respondent and consequent trauma suffered by her for such acts.
46. This Court agrees with the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the foundation of law for action for
malicious prosecution lies in the abuse of the process of court by
wrongfully setting the law in motion by the defendant. It is also in
agreement with the proposition that it is not at all necessary to
maintain a suit for damages of malicious prosecution that the
criminal process initiated by the defendant should have reached a
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 17
18
stage where the plaintiff might have been formally prosecuted and
then acquitted. It is of the view that what is required is that criminal
law was set in motion with mala fide intention against the plaintiff
and she suffered damages due to initiation of criminal law, and
ultimately the process ended in favor of the plaintiff.
47. However, it is for the plaintiff to prove by adducing reliable and
cogent evidence that she suffered injury in the form of loss of
reputation, as well as that the respondent with mala fide intention
had lodged the FIR on 30.08.2011, on the basis of which Karimganj
P.S. Case No. 483/2011 was registered. It is for the plaintiff to prove
that the FIR dated 30.08.2011 was lodged by the present
respondent without any reasonable or probable cause, and that it
was lodged with malicious intentions.
48. On perusal of the FIR lodged by the respondent on 30.08.2011, on
the basis of which Karimganj P.S. Case No. 483/2011 was
registered, it appears that basically the respondent has alleged
therein that the appellant was trying to contact him over mobile
phone and was sending several SMS to him in order to persuade
him to accede to the unethical, immoral, and illegal demand made
by the appellant.
49. It appears from the materials on record that there was some sort of
relationship between the appellant and the respondent, however,
some misunderstanding arose between them, and the respondent
started avoiding the appellant, and the appellant was trying to settle
the matter amicably, which yielded no results. Ultimately, the matter
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 18
19
aggravated and it led to the filing of complaints against each other.
It also appears that on the basis of the complaints of both the
parties separate police cases were registered. The CID P. S. Case
No. 95/2011 was registered on the basis of complaint filed by the
present appellant against the present respondent and the Karimganj
P. S. Case No. 483/2011 was registered on the basis of FIR lodged
by the present respondent against the present appellant. The
matter even reached the Supreme Court of India and as per
direction of the Apex Court, both the cases were investigated by a
common Investigating Officer, who was in the rank of Inspector
General of Police. However, in both the cases, final reports were
submitted by the Investigating Officer and in spite of filing of
objections by both the parties in respective cases, the final reports
were accepted by the respective Courts and the matters was closed.
50. In the Title Suit No. 70/2015 filed by the present appellant, though,
the PW-1 has deposed that the filing of the First Information Report
by the present respondent against her and her husband has
destroyed her reputation in the eye of public as well as the society
where she lives in. However, no witness from the said society has
been examined to corroborate the testimony of PW-1, and this
aspect has been taken into consideration by the trial court while not
relying on the testimony of PW-1.
51. The trial court in paragraph number 10.39 of the impugned
judgment has observed that in order to succeed in a case of
defamation, the plaintiff had to adduce at least one witness who
have formed such an opinion regarding the lowering of the prestige,
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 19
20
goodwill, respect of the plaintiff in his or her estimation or the
estimation of the society. However, in the instant case, no such
independent witness could be examined by the plaintiff who has
deposed regarding lowering of her reputation due to the acts of the
present respondent. As such, the findings arrived at by the trial
court in the impugned judgment that the plaintiff/present appellant
failed to establish that her reputation was maligned due to lodging
of FIR by the present respondent may not be faulted with.
52. Moreover, the evidence on record also suggests that once when the
respondent stopped to communicate with the appellant, she
continued to send SMS from her mobile phone as well as other
mobile phone and made all attempts to amicably settle the matter
between them. The Investigating Officer who was investigating both
the cases filed by the parties hereto against each other also came to
a finding that the relationship between the appellant and
respondent was not merely an acquaintance or friendship, and it
was more than that. Under such circumstances, when the appellant
tried to continue to contact the respondent in spite of the fact that
he was avoiding her and also tried to contact him through other
persons, it may not be said that the lodging of the FIR dated
30.08.2011 by the respondent is without any reasonable or
probable cause.
53. Under such circumstances, the finding arrived at by the Trial Court
that the present appellant, as plaintiff, in Title Suit No. 70/2015 has
failed to establish that the defendant lodged the FIR dated
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 20
21
30.08.2011 against her with mala fide intention and thereby her
reputation was harmed cannot be faulted with on any count.
54. The search and seizure procedure conducted during investigation of
Karimganj P. S. Case No. 483/2011 may also not be faulted with as
same was done in accordance with the provisions of the procedure
laid down by law for conduct of investigation. No evidence to show
that any excess was committed during such search and seizure
procedure has been adduced by the plaintiff's side before the Trial
Court and as stated earlier, there is no evidence of independent
witnesses to indicate that due to such search and seizure procedure
conducted at the Dibrugarh residence of the appellant, her
reputation was lowered in the estimation of public or her society.
55. As such, the findings arrived at by the Trial Court against Issue No.3
framed by it and all other issues may not be faulted with, and this
Court, therefore, sees no ground to interfere with such findings.
56. In view of the discussions made and reasons cited in the foregoing
paragraphs, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the Trial Court.
57. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
58. However, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the
parties are left to bear their own costs.
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 21
22
59. The Registry shall send back the record of the Trial Court along with
a copy of this judgment to the Trial Court immediately.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Amita Sharma
2026.08.28 13:58:51
+05'30'
RFA No. 30/2024 Page 22