JUDGMENT
1. In this case it has been found as a fact that the appellant without probable or reasonable cause informed a Magistrate that the respondent had committed theft in his house. In consequence of that information an enquiry was made by the Police. The respondent’s house was searched and the case was reported by the Police to be untrue as against the respondents. The Courts below have awarded the respondent Rs. 20 as damages for the injury caused by the house search. Against this decision the defendant appeals.
2. It is urged that inasmuch as no summons or warrant was issued to the respondents they suffered no damage in that no proceedings were actually instituted against them and in support of this view the case of Golap Jan v. Bhola Nath Khetry 11 Ind. Cas. 311 : 38 C. 880 : 15 C.W.N. 917 is quoted. It is to be noted that in that case reference is made to oases in which there has been malicious arrest and malicious search. It is argued for the appellant in this case that there was no malicious search. There is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant asked the Police to search the respondent’s house, but it is a common rule of law that where a certain result is the inevitable consequence of a certain action, the party guilty of the action is responsible for the result. A complaint of theft to responsible authority must inevitably result in the search of the house of the person accused of the offence. A search caused by a malicious complaint is, therefore, a malicious search. The party responsible for the malicious complaint is responsible for damages resulting from the malicious search.
3. The appeal on the main ground, therefore, fails.
4. The learned Vakil for the appellant next urges that the Munsif has erred in giving the plaintiff costs on the full amount claimed that is Rs. 280 when the damages actually awarded were Rs. 20 only. In view of the fact that the defendant maintained throughout the proceedings that complaint was true, there is clearly nothing improper in the exercise of the Munsif’s discretion, with regard to costs. The appeal fails in this respect also.
5. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
