1998 PLP 225 (SCMR)
HAQ NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 225 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mina, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Munawar Ahmed Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | HAQ NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 225 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 225 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mina, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Munawar Ahmed Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 225 (SCMR) (HAQ NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Birjees Nagy, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. .
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th February, 1997.
- Birjees Nagy, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. .
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 30‑1‑1996 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.R. No.277 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑S. 133‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Tort‑‑‑Petitioner having initiated proceedings under S. 133, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 against respondent, latter filed suit for damages for malicious prosecution against petitioner‑‑‑Competency to file such suit‑‑‑Petitioner claimed that proceedings under S. 133, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, were preventive/curative in nature, therefore such proceedings initiated by petitioner against respondent did not amount to prosecution muchless, malicious prosecution‑‑‑Suit filed by respondent against petitioner claiming damages for malicious prosecution was, therefore, misconceived‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was granted to examine such contention.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
Contends, inter alia, that the proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C. are preventive/curative in nature and as such the proceedings under section 133 initiated by the petitioner against the respondent did not amount to prosecution much less malicious prosecution. That being so, the suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner claiming damages for malicious prosecution was misconceived. Leave to appeal is granted to the petitioner to examine this contention. Execution of the impugned decree is stayed pending the hearing of the appeal which may be fixed at an early date as only a short point involved in the appeal. A.A./H-2/S Leave granted.