Malacious prosecution

2013 CLD 456 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Suit for damagesPre-conditionsCriminal court, judgment of

Plaintiff claimed to face humiliation, defamation and also sustained mental anguish and also suffered physically as well, due to registration of F.I.R. against her, although she did not face any trial

Effect

For maintaining suit for malicious prosecution, it was absolutely necessary that plaintiff should have been prosecuted by defendant

Even in a case where police prepared a charge sheet against plaintiff but did not send him up for trial, such person could not be said to have been prosecuted, so also where police had arrested a person on complaint of somebody but itself let him off on bail and subsequently that person was discharged on submission of final report, there was no prosecution as to find action of malicious prosecution

Merely setting law in motion by making appeal to some person clothed with judicial authority in regard to any matter or merely giving information to police which induced the latter to launch investigation would not constitute prosecution

In an action for damages on account of malicious prosecution, judgment of criminal court was not admissible in evidence except for the purpose of finding out whether or not decision in criminal case was in favour of plaintiff

Not only that Judgment of criminal court had to be ignored altogether but it could not be relied upon as conclusive for deciding civil suit for malicious prosecution

Civil court had to go into the matter on the basis of evidence adduced before it in civil suit independently of the view expressed by criminal court

Observations of criminal court or reasons on which acquittal was based was not to be accepted as conclusive

Plaintiff failed to make out a case of damages against defendant

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

2010 CLC 1402 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

O. I. R. 8, O. VIII, R.10 & O. XLIII, R.1(b)TortMalacious prosecutionSuit for unliquidated damagesStriking off defence of defendant

Defendants had assailed decree passed by the Trial Court under R.10 of O. VIII, C.P.C. penalizing the defendants for non-submission of written statement

In the present case, Trial Court after completion of process for attendance of the defendants fixed the date for filing of written statement on the appointed date, some defendants attended the court, some of them were absent and one of the absent defendants sent application for adjournment which was rejected and impugned order was passed by striking off the defence of the defendants under O. VIII, R.10, C.P. C.

Defendants in the suit had been impleaded in their representative capacity, but no application for permission to sue the defendants in their representative capacity had been attached, nor the court had granted any such permission on its own accord

Trial Court having violated the prerequisite of O.I, R.8, C.P.C., proceedings were a nullity

Trial Court had not exercised its discretion judiciously and with conscious mind for the reasons that just after procuring the attendance of the defendants, the next date was fixed for written statement without understanding the nature of the suit; that on the appointed date without giving a second chance and by rejecting the application of one of the defendants for adjournment, passed the impugned decree; that Trial Court did not look into the averments of the plaint and to the judgment of the Chief Court in the criminal case between the parties to understand that, lithe dismissal of the criminal case would amount to malicious prosecution and fulfil the jurisprudential standard of the malicious prosecution and unliquidated damages prayed for in the plaint could be granted declaring the criminal case between the parties to be malicious and that written statement had been asked to be submitted as a routine practice in lower judiciary in the area and the same seemed not specifically required to be submitted; and a routine call for filing written statement, stemming from a rule of procedure was not synonymous to expression "required by court"

Impugned decree was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to comply with O.I, R.8, C.P. C.

2008 PLD 21 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Malacious prosecutionSuit for damagesF.I.R. under S.337-F, P.P.C. was lodged by defendant against plaintiff

Case was registered against plaintiff, challan was submitted to the court and court started recording of evidence, but said case was withdrawn by defendant

Defendant who sustained injuries from the hands of plaintiff was medically examined and prosecution started producing evidence, which in the meantime resulted in acquittal of plaintiff, based on the statement of defendant

Acquittal of plaintiff was based on the withdrawal of defendant from the prosecution launched against the plaintiff

Even otherwise, if the acquittal or discharge was on merits, that would not confer right on the plaintiff to sue for damages on the basis of malicious prosecution

Proof in civil cases and in criminal cases was different and while suing for malicious prosecution, the complainant had to prove independently the grudge, malice and ulterior motives on the part of the complainant, which was lacking in the present case

Plaintiff having been acquitted on the basis of compromise, it would not make plaintiff entitled to the damages claimed by him

Courts below had correctly appreciated evidence and the, data available on the record

Revision Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2008 PLD 25 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Suit for damages

Limitation.