As per case facts, the plaintiff, a respected stamp vendor, alleged harassment and false prosecution by government officials, leading to an FIR and his arrest. The criminal proceedings were later ... quashed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought damages for malicious prosecution, arguing personal and reputational harm, but the Trial Court dismissed his suit. This appeal contests that dismissal. The question arose whether the plaintiff proved malicious prosecution and was entitled to damages, especially since the criminal proceedings were quashed. Finally, the High Court held that while the criminal proceedings were quashed, the plaintiff failed to respond to initial notices and could not prove malice or improper motive by the defendants. It emphasized that an acquittal does not automatically equate to malicious prosecution, and malice must be proven. Consequently, the appeal for damages was dismissed.