P L D 2017 Balochistan 85
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati and Abdullah Baloch, JJ
IBRAHIM SHAH ---Appellant
Versus
PERVEZ RANA--- Respondent
R.F.A. No.140 of 2009, decided on 30th May, 2017.
Malicious prosecution --
----Damages ---Acquittal on benefit of doubt ---Plaintiff faced criminal trial initiated on complaint
of defendant from which he was acquitted on benefit of doubt --- Plaintiff filed suit for recovery
of damages on allegation of malicious prosecution against defendant which was dismissed by
Trial Court ---Validity ---Plaintiff, in suit for malicious prosecution was to prove three things; that
plaintiff was prosecuted by defendant and prosecution was terminated in plaintiff's favour; that
defendant was actuated b y malice; and that defendant acted without reasonable and plausible
cause---Plaintiff could not succeed unless he could prove all said three points ---Plaintiff was
acquitted on basis of benefit of doubt and not on ground that plaintiff proved his innocence
before Trial Court ---Suit for damages could only be decreed when all ingredients were
successfully established ---Mere filing of criminal case and acquittal of plaintiff by extending him
benefit of doubt was not sufficient by itself to establish case for m alicious prosecution against
defendant ---Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court did not suffer from any irregularity or
illegality neither same was perverse or ridiculous ---Trial Court had passed a well -reasoned
judgment in accordance with law after dis cussing each and every issue and evidence brought on
record ---Plaintiff failed to point out any material misreading and non -reading of evidence by
Trial Court --- Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Abdul Raoof v. Abdul Razzaq PLD 1994 SC 476 ref.
Jamil Lodeen for Appellant.
Abdul Sattar for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 24th April, 2017.
JUDGMENT
ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. -- This judgment disposes of R.F.A. No.140 of 2009 filed by
the appellant Ibrahim Shah son of Akhtar, against the judgment and decree da ted 7th August
2009 (hereinafter referred as "the impugned judgment and decree") passed by learned Civil
Judge -III. Quetta (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court"), whereby the suit filed by the
appellant -plaintiff for recovery of Rs.36,00,000/ - was di smissed.
2. Facts of the case are that on 13th April 2007 the appellant plaintiff filed a suit for
recovery of Rs.36,00,000/ - against the respondent -defendant contending therein that the
respondent lodged an FIR against him bearing No.112/2005 under Sections 353, 342, 504, 506,
427, 186, 148, 149/34 P.P.C., with the allegations that the appellant along with Mir Abdul
Wadood Raisani and armed persons came to defendant's property situated at Samungli Road,
Quetta and demolished the newly constructed wall; tha t after investigation, the appellant was
challaned before the learned Judicial Magistrate- I Quetta, who after full -fledged trial acquitted
the appellant along with other accused persons vide judgment dated 23rd December 2006; that
the above mentioned frivolous proceedings were initiated by the defendant with intent to drag the
appellant into false litigation, to harass and humiliate his reputation and made him bound to
appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial Court without any fault on his behalf;
that due to malicious proceedings, the appellant suffered mental torture, disrepute, harassment
and business losses and harm to his reputation in the society as well as in the tribe. Hence, with
the above averments suit for recovery of Rs.36,00,000/ - was filed as damages.
3. The suit was contested by the respondent -defendant on legal and factual grounds by
means of filing written statement, raised objections regarding maintainability of the suit. The
trial Court out of the pleadings of parties frame d the following issues:
i. Whether the suit of the plaintiff in view of the Preliminary Legal Objections A to
D of defendant is not maintainable?
ii. Whether plaintiff was dragged into a false criminal litigation by the defendant?
iii. Whether due to said case plaintiff has received a loss of Rs.25,00,000/ - in his
business?
iv. Whether during the said case plaintiff has received mental torture and loss of
reputation?
v. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?
vi. Relief?
4. To prove its case, the plaintiff -appellant produced six witnesses in support of his case,
besides recording his own statement, whereas in rebuttal the defendant besides recording his own
statement produced two witnesses. On conclusion of trial and after hearing arguments, the
learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7th August 2009 dismissed the
suit, whereafter instant appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the learned trial Cou rt suffers from misreading and non -reading of evidence, which is
liable to be set aside; that the appellant in support of his case produced confidence inspiring
evidence, which were not taken into consideration to its true perspective; that the respondent had
lodged a false and frivolous FIR against the appellant and the appellant was honorably acquitted
of the charge; that due to the malicious litigation, the appellant has caused financial loss as well
as, suffered from serious mental torture; that the lea rned trial Court without proper appreciation
of evidence dismissed the suit of the appellant in an arbitrary manner; that the judgment and
decree passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the
contentions so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the appellant
has badly failed to prove its case through evidence; that the criminal case was registered against
the appellant when he had committed such offences, however, he was acquitted of the charge on
the ground of benefit of doubt for the reasons and contradictions having been observed in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses as such, he could not claim for honorable acquittal; t hat
the appellant was failed to produce any documentary evidence with regard to his financial loss,
mental torture and damages; that the learned trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence had
rightly dismissed the suit of appellant.
7. Heard the cou nsel for the parties and perused the record minutely, the record reveals that
the respondent registered a criminal case vide FIR No. 112 of 2005 under sections 353, 342, 504,
506, 427, 186, 148, 149/34, P.P.C., against the appellant with certain allegations and thereafter,
the prosecution produced its witnesses against the appellant in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate- II, Quetta, who after full -fledged trial acquitted the appellant extended benefit of
doubt vide judgment dated 23- 12-2006.
8. In a su it for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove three things. One that the
plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant and that prosecution terminated in plaintiff's favour.
Two that the defendant was actuated by malice and three, that the defendant acted without
reasonable and probable cause unless the plaintiff succeeds in proving all the above three points,
he cannot succeed. In this reference we have to consider whether plaintiff has proved that
respondent acted without reasonable and probable ca use, because want of reasonable and
probable cause is a necessary ingredient in an action for malicious prosecution and that acquittal
gained from criminal Court does not relieve the plaintiff from necessarily of adducing evidence
of "want of reasonable or probable cause". The mere acquittal of charge of a criminal offence
alone is not sufficient to claim damages. In the case reported as Abdul Raoof v. Abdul Razzaq
PLD 1994 SC 476. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the judgment of the High
Court whereby suit of plaintiff for recovery of damages on the basis of malicious persecution
was decreed. In the said case an FIR was registered on the telegram sent by the defendant. The
plaintiff was discharged by the trial Court in the said criminal case which led him to file suit for
damages and malicious prosecution, despite discharge of the plaintiff, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of Pakistan held that police after investigation had submitted challan against the plaintiff,
therefore, it could not be said that the defendant acted without reasonable or probable cause.
9. On perusal of evidence produced by the appellant in the instant case, we are of the
opinion that besides PWs. the statement of the appellant is also silent with regard to the
prosecution that defendant acted without any reasonable or probable cause.
10. Even otherwise, the appellant was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt and not on
the ground that the plaintiff proved his innocence before the trial Court. The suit for damages can
only be decreed when all the ingredients as mentioned hereinabove successfully established,
which is lacking in the instant case. Mere filing of criminal case and acquittal of the appellant by
extending him benefit of doubt is not sufficient by itself to establi sh case for malicious
prosecution against the respondent.
11. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was also evaluated thoroughly
by us, which does not suffer from any irregularities and illegalities neither the same is perverse
nor rid iculous. The learned trial Court had passed a well -reasoned judgment in accordance with
law, after discussing each and every issue and evidence brought on record whereas, the learned
counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any material misreading and non- reading of
evidence by trial Court.
For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are not inclined to accept this appeal, which is
accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. Parties are directed to bear their own cost.
MH/99/Bal. Appeal dis misse dThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.