| Case ID |
2349ae3e-38f2-4fb5-9469-4b15a58c93d7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
R.S.A. No. 11 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
Feb 22, 2021 |
| Decision |
The appellant is aggrieved by judgments and decrees dated 30.07.2016 and 21.02.2017 passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court, respectively. The brief facts of the case involve an FIR No. 146/2003 registered by the appellant against the respondents, alleging theft of the appellants' gate, leading to the respondents' arrest and 22 days behind bars. The FIR was later discharged, and subsequent private complaints and appeals were dismissed. The respondents filed a suit for damages resulting in this appeal, initially awarded Rs. 500,000/- by the trial Court for malicious prosecution, which was later reduced to Rs. 200,000/- by the appellate Court. The High Court examined the grounds under Section 100 of C.P.C., reaffirming the principles of malicious prosecution, the necessity of proving malice alongside the absence of reasonable and probable cause, and the discretionary power to award damages for loss of liberty, dignity, and reputation. The Court held that the appellant acted maliciously without reasonable cause, subjected the respondents to false prosecution, leading to financial hardship and reputational damage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the awarded damages and costs as per Section 35(1)(iii) of C.P.C. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case cited as 2022 SLD 1467 and 2022 PLJ 54, the Islamabad High Court adjudicated on R.S.A. No. 11 of 2017, heard on February 22, 2021. The appellant, Abdul Khameed, faced allegations of malicious prosecution initiated against Muhammad Shabbir and others through FIR No. 146/2003, which accused the respondents of theft. The respondents endured 22 days of incarceration, leading to significant financial and reputational damage. Despite the FIR's subsequent discharge and dismissals of related private complaints and appeals up to the Supreme Court, the High Court found merit in the malicious prosecution claims. Under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, specifically Articles 4, 9, 14, and 25, the appellant's actions violated the respondents' rights to liberty, dignity, and lawful treatment. The case also referenced pivotal sections of the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 100) and the Civil Procedure Code (Sections 35(1)(i), 35(1)(iii), and 35(1)(IV)) to establish the legal framework for assessing damages related to malicious prosecution. Judges Babar Sattar presided over the case, with Raja Basharat Hussain Abbasi representing the appellant and Syed Muhammad Ali Bokhari for the respondents. The court meticulously evaluated precedents, including cases like Muhammad Feroze v. Muhammad Jammat Ali and Bashir Ahmed v. Mst. Taja Begum, to affirm the principles of malicious prosecution, emphasizing the necessity of proving both malice and the lack of reasonable and probable cause. The decision underscored the judiciary's role in safeguarding individuals against the abuse of legal processes aimed at settling personal scores, ensuring that violations of fundamental rights are met with appropriate legal remedies. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, reinforcing the award of Rs. 200,000/- in damages and imposing additional litigation costs in favor of the respondents. This case exemplifies the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional protections and deterring frivolous legal actions that undermine the integrity of the justice system. |
| Court |
Islamabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
BABAR SATTAR, J.,
ABDUL KHAMEED,
MUHAMMAD SHABBIR,
Raja Basharat Hussain Abbasi,
Syed Muhammad Ali Bokhari
|
| Judges |
BABAR SATTAR, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Raja Basharat Hussain Abbasi, Advocate for Appellant.,
Syed Muhammad Ali Bokhari, Advocate for Respondents.
|
| Petitioners |
ABDUL KHAMEED
|
| Respondents |
MUHAMMAD SHABBIR etc.
|
| Citations |
2022 SLD 1467,
2022 PLJ 54
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Feroze and others v. Muhammad Jammat Ali (2006 SCMR 1304),
Bashir Ahmed v. Mst. Taja Begum and others (PLD 2010 SC 906),
Pandit Gaya Parshad Tewari v. Sardar Bhagat Singh and another (Privy Council, 1908 (35) L.R.-I.A. 189),
AIR 1947 PC 108,
Muhammad Yousuf v. Syed Ghayyur Hussain Shah and 5 others (1993 SCMR 1185),
Azizullah v. Jawaid A Bajwa and 3 others (2005 SCMR 1950),
Niaz and others v. Abdul Sattar and others (PLD 2006 SC 432),
Abdul Majeed Khan v. Tawseen Abdul Haleem and others (2012 CLC 6),
Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdul Qayyum (PLD 2016 SC 478),
Rana Shaukat Ali Khan and others v. Fayyaz Ahmed and others (2017 MLD 120 Lahore)
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
4,
9,
14,
25,
100,
35(1)(i),
35(1)(iii),
35(1)(IV)
|