Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 682 2000 SLD 682 2000 PLD 31
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No, 17 of 1999, decided on 06-10-1999. Date of hearing: 05-10-1999. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court Dated 4-11-1998 in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1996).
MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: SardaRafique Mahmood Khan
Respondent(s) by: M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi

MUHAMMAD LATEEF KHAN AND 2 OTHERS

VS

MUHAMMAD AFSAR KHAN

Law:

Section:

--.-Malicious prosecution---Suit for damages---Necessary for plaintiffs to prove that their prosecution was without any reasonable ground---Mere fact that plaintiffs/accused were acquitted, would not justify to award them compensation for malicious prosecution without proving id fact. Jogendra Garabadu and others v. Lingeraj Patra and others AIR 1970 Orissa 91; Jumma Khan v. The State PLD 1982 FSC 207; S.M. Tufail Ahmad v. Willayat Hussain and 2 others993 CLC 1743; Habib Bank Ltd. v. The State and others 1993 SCM1853; Khawaja Muhammad Naseem Shafiqur Rehman 1996 CLC 1460nd Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi PLD 1990 SC 28 ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.--- This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 4-11-1998, whereby the decree passed by the trial Court awarding them damages for malicious prosecution was set asidby the High Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a criminal case was registered .under sections 447 and 427, Penal Code read with section 14, E.H.A. on the report lodged by Muhamm Afsar, respondent herein, against the appellants. After trial the, appellants, herein, were acquitted by the Tehsil Criminal Court. Thereafter, the appellants herein, filed a civil suit alling that they have been dragged in a criminal Court for about three years and had borne the expenses to the tune of Rs.24,000. They prayed for a decree for damages against the respondent for malicious prosecution. The trial Court decreed the suit. However, on appeal to the High Court the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside mainly on the ground that there was no evidence in support of the fact that the allegation against them was without a reasonable ground. It is against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court that the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Sardar Rafique Mahmood an, the learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that thfact that appellants were maliciously prosecuted on the report lodged by the respondent is evident from the copy of the judgment of the Tehsil Criminal Court. He has submitted that the acquittal of the appellants is ample proof of the fact that they were…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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