Professional Documents
Culture Documents
b. Knowledge of restraint
In other words, if one direction by one path has been closed for him, but
another is open there is no false imprisonment.
Bird v. Jones, (1845) 7 QB 742
The defendants lodged a complaint with the police that the plaintiff had
set fire to their property. Plaintiff was arrested by the police but later on
discharged because he made the complaint without any justification and
it resulted in the arrest of the plaintiff.
d. No action for false imprisonment lies for wrongfully obtaining an order
or judgment for false imprisonment from a court of justice, though
erroneous, irregular and without justification.
e. If a person procures ministerial officers to arrest unlawfully or to
execute a false order, in such a way as to make them his agents, he
may be liable for false imprisonment.
As the defendant caused the arrest of the plaintiff, the latter was held
entitled to recover damages for false imprisonment from the defendant.
Sadik Hossain Khan v. Taffazal Khan, (1939) 43 CWN 1080
The defendant, out of malice, got the plaintiff arrested by the police on
false allegations. The arrest of the plaintiff was held to amount to false
imprisonment by the defendant for which he was liable in damages.
f. where a person has entered upon another’s premises or tenement
under a contract or licence he cannot complain of being in false
imprisonment, merely because he is not allowed to go out in a manner
inconsistent with the term on which he has entered, or is refused special
facility at a time not contemplated between the parties.
Bahner v. Marvest Hotel, (1970) 12 DLR 646
A hotelier detained a guest who disputed a bill. He gave his name and
address still he was kept detained. It was held to be false imprisonment.
a. Self Defence
e. confinement of lunatics
g. consent
h. Public authority
The Punjab High Court held that the proceedings before Punjab
Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Council is prosecution and a suit for
malicious prosecution can be lodged for such proceedings.
Hazoor Singh v. Ganga Singh, AIR 1973 Raj 82
Where the High Court orders quashing of the criminal case at the
cognizing stage being frivolous in nature, it puts an end to the criminal
proceedings launched against the plaintiff.
Issardas v. Acissudomat, AIR 1940 Ker 230
An illiterate villager had filed a suit concerning some land and had
engaged an advocate for the purpose. In a latter litigation, relating
probably to the same matter or connected matter the same advocate
appeared against the villager. The villager filed a complaint to the Bar
Council against the advocate for professional misconduct. The Bar
Council finding some similarity in the land in dispute ultimately came to
the conclusion that there were two different lands and gave the benefit
of doubt to the advocate. The advocate then sued there was reasonable
and probable cause for the complaint made by the villager before the
Bar Council and therefore the essential ingredient of malicious
prosecution were not made out as the institution of suit was not
motivated by malice.
Sheo Singh v. Ranjit Singh and Others, AIR 1983 All 105
Smt. Sona Rani Dutta v. Debarata Dutta, AIR 1991 Cal 186
The defendant filed FIR against the plaintiff and his sister alleged that
her earring was snatched away from her person whereby she had
sustained bleeding injury to her ear and thus in order to set police
machinery and law into motion added the offence of theft with the
offence of assault knowing well that plaintiff had not snatched away her
earring, the FIR was clearly lodged out of malice.
C.M. Agrawala v. Halar Salt and Chemical Works, AIR 1977 Cal 386
The Calcutta High Court held that the plaintiff can claim damage on the
following counts: damage to reputation, to the person, to the property.