| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 314 1999 SLD 314 1999 SCMR 700 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 114 and 115 of 1995, decision dated: 18-12-1998. (On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 13-4-1994 passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 16/93 and 511/92 respectively)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ
Jehanzeb Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Sh. Wazir Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
Civil Appeals Nos. 114 and 115 of 1995, decision dated: 18-12-1998. (On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 13-4-1994 passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 16/93 and 511/92 respectively)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ
Jehanzeb Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Sh. Wazir Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
Subedar (Retd.) FAZALE RAHIM
VS
RAB NAWAZ
Law:
Section:
(a) Malicious prosecution--- ---- Factors to be established by plaintiff before a decree for malicious prosecution could be awarded enumerated. Following factors must be established by the plaintiff before a decree for malicious prosecution can be awarded to him:--- (i) That the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant; (ii) That the prosecution ended in plaintiff's favour; (iii) That the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause; (iv) That the defendant was actuated by malice; (v) That the proceedings had interfered with plaintiff's liberty and had also affected his/her reputation; and finally; (vi) That the plaintiff had suffered damage. Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi PLD 1990 SC 28 quoted. (b) Malicious prosecution--Mere fact that prosecution instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff ultimately failed, cannot expose the former to the charge of malicious prosecution unless it is proved by the plaintiff that the prosecution was instituted without any reasonable or probable cause and it was due to malicious intention of the defendant and not with a mere intention of carrying the law into effect. Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi PLD 1990 SC 28; Balbhaddar Singh v. Badri Sah AIR 1926 PC 46; Naber Shaha v. Shamsuddin PLD 1964 Dacca 111; Muhammad Mantazuddin v. Shamsur Rahman PLD 1964 Dacce 618 and Province of East Bengal v. S.M. Faruque PLD 1959 Dacca 268 ref. (c) Malicious prosecution--- ---- Petitioner (plaintiff) failed to establish that the respondent (defendant) had invented such prosecution against him or that he had acted with malice or without reasonable or probable cause---Mere fact that petitioner was discharged in an earlier case under S. 169, Cr.P.C. or that respondent was, subsequently, prosecuted by the Police under S. 182, P.P.C. was not sufficient by itself to establish a case of malicious prosecution against the respondent---Entire onus in such case would be on the plaintiff which he failed to discharge---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.169---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.182. In the present case, an altercation had allegedly taken place between the petitioner and the respondent, whereupon the respondent lodged a report…
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