Dear Client,

read as under

... Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the concerned official may be withdrawn from investigative responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on his culpability. We also feel compelled to require the adoption of some indispensable measures, which may reduce the malady suffered by parties on both ...

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/breaking-erring-prosecutors-and-investigating-officers-must-be-proceeded-against-in-case-of-unmerited-acquittals-and-wrongful-convictions-sc-download-the-judgment/

In actual, there`s no such provision in IPC except departmental proceeding but can take advantage of judgement below rest can be advise on perusal of police report and other documents -

Darshan Singh’s case [ 1985 Cr LJ NOC 71(P&H)] highlights the offence under Section 194, where an investigating officer concocted false evidence with the help of two sarpanchas and villagers to convict an innocent man in a false murder case which lead to his conviction by Session Court and during the course of hearing of the appeal in the High Court, the so called murder man appear in person, before the H.C, the inspector and the sarpanchas and other witnesses were liable to be prosecuted under Sec 194 of IPC read with Sec 340 of the CrPC.

There has been supreme court directions in many cases for the same. As pdf file can't be attached I can't send your the judgement.

Hi,

For this, you need to project matter to senior police officials such DIG, DGP etc and ask for the further investigation, supervision by them.

Hi, if this is your case, then on such order of court , you can file a complaint directly in high court under section 482 Crpc and ask for lodging of FIR..

1. In the instant case, corruption has neither been alleged nor proved.

2. On the contrary, the police has themselves sough court leave to re-investigate the matter.

3. You can file a Writ Petition against police for its wrong action which has caused damage to you praying for exemplary punishment for the said IO after conducting departmental enquiry against him under courts supervision.

Malicious prosecution it a legal term that refers to the filing of a civil or criminal case that has no probable cause, and is filed for some purpose other than obtaining justice. When such a case is decided in favor of the defendant, he may turn around and file a civil lawsuit against the plaintiff or prosecutor for malicious prosecution, seeking damages.

In the Gaya Prasad v Bhagat Singh[3] the privy council pointed out that the conduct of the complainant before and after the complaint has to be seen to decide whether he was the real prosecutor or not. If the complainant knowing that the charge is false tries to mislead the police by procuring false evidence for the conviction of the accused, he would be considered to be the prosecutor.

Cases of Malicious Prosecution

In the Kamta Prasad v National Buildings Constructions Corporation Pvt Ltd.[6] The officer of the respondent corporatin found certain articles missing while preparing inventory and checking up with the stock register. The plaintiff was prosecuted under sec. 403 of the I.P.C. but was given the benefit of doubt and hence acquitted. The plaintiff brought an action for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff could not prove that he had been harassed by the officers. There was held to be reasonable and propable case for prosecution of the plaintiff and the4 fact that plaintiff was not harassed indicated that there was no malice and hence the charge was not held.

In Girija Prasad v Uma Shankar Pathak[7] the plaintiff was a practicing advocate at Panna in M.P. he was also a Jan Sangh leader and had started an agitation on the question of food scarcity in the city and one Jan Sangh worker had gone to a hunger strike. On Jan 2 1965 Girija Singh a sub inspector was deputed outside the collectorate to control the crowd that had collected there to support the agitation. Then there were some bullet shots made from the revolver of the sub inspector. He stated that while he was grappling with some person who was assaulting him the revolver got fired mistakingly. On that date Girija Singh had lodged an FIR stating that he was assaulted by some person.his watch snatched and also the plaintiff Uma Shankar pathak was present at the scene and was instigating the crowd against him . the case was investigated and the plaintiff was arrested on 15th jan and released on bail on 18th jan. he was finally acquitted on june 30th 1965 . the plaintiff then sued 4 persons for malicious prosecution , the sub inspector Girija Prasad who lodged the F.I.R. , the S.H.O. of that area who entertained the report and two other persons involved with the case.

No such case law can be found.

Regards