### Suit for Malicious Prosecution is Premature if Appeal Against Acquittal remains Pending Final Adjudication

The Appellant, a senior officer in the CRPF, was accused by the Respondent of physical assault and attempted rape in 2017

Following a trial, the Appellant was acquitted of all charges by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, on 04.10.2019

Although the State decided not to appeal, the Respondent (complainant) filed an independent appeal against the acquittal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which remains pending

In 2022, the Appellant filed a civil suit seeking ₹1,00,00,000/- in damages for malicious prosecution

The District Judge dismissed the suit as premature under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC because the criminal appeal was still pending

The Appellant challenged this dismissal, arguing that "acquittal" under the Limitation Act does not require the exhaustion of all appellate remedies

1. Whether a suit for damages for malicious prosecution is maintainable during the pendency of an appeal against the plaintiff's acquittal

2. Whether the term "acquitted" in Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963, implies an acquittal that has attained finality

The Court applied Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which mandates that a suit for malicious prosecution be filed within one year from when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is "otherwise terminated"

It relied on the precedent *Laxmi Narayan Soni v. Roop Chand Soni*, which established that a cause of action for malicious prosecution arises only when the order of acquittal attains finality

The Court further cited *Trilok Chand Bansal v. Bharat Bhushan Bansal*, affirming that prosecution is not "terminated" in favor of a plaintiff while an appeal against acquittal is pending

Finally, it applied Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the rejection of a plaint that is premature or barred by law

The Court reasoned that the primary essential for a malicious prosecution claim is the conclusive termination of criminal proceedings in the plaintiff's favor

The Court rejected the Appellant’s literal interpretation of Article 74, clarifying that the issue was not merely the timing of limitation but the existence of a complete cause of action

It observed that as long as an appeal is pending in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the possibility of the acquittal being reversed remains

If a civil court were to award damages while an appeal is pending, it might lead to "inconsistent findings" should the appellate court later convict the individual

Therefore, the prosecution cannot be legally considered "terminated" until the appellate process is exhausted or the period for filing such an appeal expires

The suit was correctly identified as premature because the cause of action had not yet fully accrued

The High Court dismissed the Regular First Appeal, affirming the District Judge's order to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC