Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Law: Defamation Ordinance, 2002

Section: 8,12

Summary The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal and upheld the concurrent dismissal of the petitioners’ claim for Rs. 25.6 million in damages. Although the FIR concerning allegedly fake pesticides was ultimately cancelled in “C Class,” the petitioners failed to prove the essential elements of either defamation or malicious prosecution: they did not establish that the respondents caused the newspaper publications, quantify their alleged financial loss, or show that the FIR had been lodged maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause. The existence of a Karachi laboratory report declaring the seized sample fake, together with a conflicting Hyderabad report finding it genuine, showed that there was at least a prima facie reasonable basis for the complaint. The defamation suit was also time-barred under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002. Core points Petitioners were pesticide dealers and authorised dealers of Bayer CropScience Pakistan since 2004. On 16 July 2008, their premises were raided; pesticides were seized and FIR No. 87 of 2008 was registered alleging sale of fake pesticides. A Hyderabad laboratory report declared certain samples genuine and according to specification; subsequently, the FIR was cancelled in “C Class” on 15 April 2009. The petitioners sued for Rs. 25.6 million, claiming mental torture, business loss, reputational injury, and malicious prosecution/defamation. The trial court dismissed the suit on 27 August 2015, and the Sindh High Court dismissed their first appeal on 13 February 2025. The Supreme Court found that the actual grievance arose from registration of the FIR and alleged wrongful criminal proceedings, which properly falls under the tort of malicious prosecution, not defamation. A criminal complaint/FIR does not automatically constitute defamation because communications made in the criminal-justice process enjoy legal protection or immunity. The petitioners did not prove that Bayer or Phoenix Intellectual Property Service authored, procured, authorised, or caused the newspaper reports. The newspapers, editors, publishers, and correspondents were neither impleaded as parties…