| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 493 2012 SLD 493 2012 CLC 644 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No.14 of 2007, decision dated: 17-01-2012. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court, dated 3-11-2006 in Civil Appeal No.5 of 2006)
MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J. AND RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.14 of 2007, decision dated: 17-01-2012. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court, dated 3-11-2006 in Civil Appeal No.5 of 2006)
MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J. AND RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD NAZIR KHAN
VS
MUHAMMAD AMEER
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 133
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 133
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VIII,R.5
(a) Malicious prosecution-------Suit for recovery of amount on the ground of false and malicious prosecution---Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of amount on the ground that defendant had instituted a false and baseless private complaint, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court below---Plaintiff claimed that due to said false complaint he was entitled to recovery of suit amount because prosecution was malicious---Defendant in his written statement had denied all the allegations stating that he had correctly filed the complaint against the plaintiff---Trial Court had considered the contents of plaint, written statement and evidence produced by the parties and after detailed examination of evidence, concluded that plaintiff had failed to prove his case---Findings of the Trial Court were upheld by the Appellate Court below and High Court---Validity---Nothing was in the statements of witnesses wherefrom it could be ascertained that the prosecution of the plaintiff was malicious---Only evidence which was produced by the plaintiff was that he was acquitted in said private complaint filed by the defendant/complainant---From mere acquittal, it could not be said that prosecution of the plaintiff was malicious one; it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the suit for damages that his prosecution was without reasonable cause and malicious---If a person had got reasonable and probable cause, the prosecution could not be described as malicious because he had got enmity---Whatever was stated by the plaintiff or his witnesses, the defendant cross-examined the witnesses and no material point was left in cross-examination---Plaintiff also failed to prove that he had suffered damages due to prosecution and that the proceedings had interfered with his liberty and affected his reputation---Appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court. Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi PLD 1990 SC 28; Haji Muhammad Latif Khan v. Muhammad Hanif 2007 SCR 125; Muhammad Arif v. Muhammad Boota and 4 others 2007 SCR 363; Muhammad Latif Khan and 2 others v. Muhammad Afsar Khan PLD 2000 SC (AJ&K) 31; Naber Shaha v. Shamsuddin and others PLD 1964 Dacca 11 and Muhammad Mantazuddin v.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492