2007 PLP 1657 (MLD)

SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.

Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner lodged F.I.R. No. 88, dated 28-2-2000 under section 380 P.P.C. read with section 14 of Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance VI of 1979. The said F.I.R. was cancelled when Ranjhoo Khan respondent took Oath on Holy Quran. The petitioner thereafter filed a criminal complaint where the respondent faced prosecution of the complaint for one and a half year. The respondent was acquitted at the conclusion of the trial vide judgment, dated 19-3-2002. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.25,000 as damages for malicious prosecution. The suit was decreed by learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 24-7-2004, while appeal against the decree was dismissed by learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree, dated 23-2-2005. The concurrent findings of the two Courts below have been assailed in this petition on the ground that the impugned judgments suffered from the defect of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The conclusions are erroneous. Learned Courts below have ignored that the respondent has approached the Court with unclean hands by misstating that he was a Chairman and prominent person of the locality. Various criminal eases were pending against him.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that suit for damages can only be decreed when the damages are claimed separately and proved through evidence. The respondent had not given the detail of the break up of damages nor the damages had been proved through cogent evidence. Learned counsel has referred to the cases of "Abdul Rauf v. Abdul Razzak and another" (PLD 1994 SC 476), "Subedar (Retd.) Fazale Rahim v. Rab Nawaz" (1999 SCMR 7Q0) and "Rafique Ahmed Khan v. Province of Punjab through Secretary, Education and others" (2004 SCMR 1065) to contend that registration of the case by itself is not sufficient for grant of damages unless the damages suffered by the plaintiff are proved through evidence. Learned counsel has submitted further that the damages can only be decreed when the damages are claimed separately and proved through evidence on each point. Learned counsel has supported his contention by referring to the cases of "Dhunjishah B. Ghadialy and others v. Karachi Parsi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and others" (2004 CLC 587) and "Nazir Ahmad and another v. Haji Nazir Ali and 3 others" (2006 MLD 907).

3. On he other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has fully supported the impugned judgments and. decrees and has submitted that filing of the criminal complaint after cancellation of the F.I.R., itself proves the mala fide of the petitioner. The acquittal of the petitioner speaks of the fact that complaint was without any reasonable or probable cause. The decree has been passed in accordance with the law and as such the instant revision petition has no merits.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and, perused the material available on the record.

5. Private Complaint No. 140-2000 was decided by Mr. Hamid Hussain, Magistrate Section-30, Bhakkar vide order, dated 19-3-2002. The petitioner was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted of the charge. The assertion of the plaint reveals that damages on each score separately have not been claimed. The petitioner, without specifying separately his claim of damages, has asserted that his claim of damages pertains to the expenses incurred on pursuing the matter before the Court and has suffered' mental and material loss besides the loss of reputation. The plaint has not been verified in accordance with the law. The respondent while appearing as P.W.1 has not even mentioned in his examination-in-chief about the extent of damages which he has suffered at the hands of the petitioner. His statement in examination-in-chief is vague. Similarly, neither the plaintiff nor his witness has stated any specific amount of damages which the plaintiff has suffered. It is settled principle that suit for damages can only be decreed when damages suffered are mentioned in the plaint on each score separately and proved by evidence on each point. The reference in this respect can be made to the cases of "Subedar (Retd.) Fazale Rahim v. Rab Nawaz" (1999 SCMR 700), Dhunjishah B. Ghadialy and others v. Karachi Parsi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and others" (2004 CLC 587) and "Nazir Ahmad and another v. Haji Nazir Ali and 3 others" (2006 MLD 907). The claim of damages of the respondent lacks it's mention on each point separately in the pleadings and evidence adduced by the respondent (plaintiff) is general, vague and scanty which, .cannot be relied upon. Mere filing of a criminal complaint and acquittal of the respondent by extending him the benefit of doubt is not sufficient by itself to establish the case for malicious prosecution against the petitioner. While holding so, I am fortified by the dictum of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subedar (Retd.) Fazale Rahim (supra).

6. For the foregoing the concurrent findings of the two Courts below are not legally sustainable. Resultantly, the same are set aside by accepting the instant revision petition. The suit of the plaintiff/ respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs. S.A.K./G-34/L Revision accepted.