#malicious prosecution

Patna HC quashed cognizance against a 35-year panel advocate for UCO Bank, holding that bona fide title opinions on loan properties cannot attract criminal liability under IPC Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B absent mala fide or conspiracy. Legal opinions are advisory and non-binding; prosecuting advocates for genuine professional advice strikes at the justice delivery system.

In a recovery suit for malicious prosecution over a disputed caste certificate, the Delhi High Court held that acquittal does not ipso facto prove malice or want of reasonable cause; the plaintiff must independently establish both elements and quantify damages with evidence. The decision reinforces the stringent burden in tort claims against state prosecutors.

Bombay High Court sets a precedent by quashing FIRs filed with malicious intent, emphasizing that personal vendetta without credible evidence violates constitutional remedies. The ruling reinforces safeguards against misuse of criminal process, impacting prosecutors, complainants, and accused alike.

Allahabad HC quashed a criminal complaint filed as retaliation in a land dispute, holding that using legal proceedings for personal vengeance constitutes an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC. The ruling reaffirms that courts must intervene to prevent misuse of criminal law in civil disputes, ensuring justice is not weaponized.

The Bombay High Court has held that invoking the SC/ST Act requires proof of caste-based insult or humiliation-mere verbal abuse, even if vulgar, cannot sustain charges under Section 3(1)(x) without evidence of discriminatory intent. This ruling reinforces that the Act is not a general anti-abuse statute and shields individuals from its misuse in personal disputes, setting a critical boundary for law enforcement and prosecutors.

Chhattisgarh High Court quashes FIR and charge-sheet in landlord-tenant dispute, holding that criminal proceedings initiated with mala fide intent amount to abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.