Peer Javed Iqbal Shah vs Muhammad Mansha etc.

HCJDA-38

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

MULTAN BENCH MULTAN

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

RFA No. 192 of 2026

Peer Javed Iqbal Shah versus Muhammad Mansha and 2 others

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing 01.10.2026

Appellant by: Mr. Abdul Rehman Zouq, learned Advocate Respondent No. 1 Mr. Ahmad Yaar Khan Baloch, by: learned Advocate Mr. Salman Asif Warraich, Respondents No. 2 learned Assistant Advocate and 3 by: General

Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J:- The present Regular First Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 23.04.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal.

2.Facts, necessary for the decision of the present appeal, are that the appellant instituted a suit dated 14.02.2023 for malicious prosecution and recovery of damages. It is averred in the suit that the appellant and his family by virtue of their lineage and political standing enjoyed respect in the society which was tarnished due to maliciously lodging the proceedings through First Information Report No. 152 dated 09.03.2022 (the ‘FIR’) registered under sections 336-B and 109 PPC at Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal. The claim includes the expenses for

defending the case, legal charges, business losses and physical as well as mental agony. Written statement was filed by respondent No. 1 on 15.07.2024 and the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

1.Whether defendants maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff, proceedings terminated in favour of the plaintiff, due to malicious prosecution the plaintiff suffered mental, physical as well as financial damages? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved affirmative, then whether plaintiff is entitled to get decree for recovery of Rs.20,31,10,000/- as prayed for?

OPP

3.Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands to file this suit? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD

5.Whether suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and same is liable to be dismissed with special cost? OPD

6.Relief.

3.After the framing of issues, the parties produced their respective evidence. The learned trial Court gave issue-wise findings and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 23.04.2026. Aggrieved therefrom, the present appeal has been filed.

4.Besides discussing ‘malice’ ‘reasonable and probable cause’ and other elements required to be established for successful claim of malicious prosecution, the learned trial Court has given observations of the law on the word ‘prosecution’ used for the purposes of malicious prosecution. The learned trial Court has concluded that since the plaintiff was not summoned in pursuance of the FIR by the learned Magistrate, therefore, the case does not fall within the definition of “prosecution”.

5.Admittedly, the claimant-appellant, his son Muhammad Dilbar Shah and Manzoor Hussain Shah,

on account of the FIR, remained behind the bars. Appellant Peer Javed Iqbal Shah and Muhammad Dilbar Shah were admitted to post-arrest bail vide order dated 12.03.2022, whereas pre-arrest bail of Manzoor Hussain Shah was confirmed vide order dated 29.03.2022. Challan under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-1898 (‘Cr.P.C.’) was submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Finally, on 18.10.2022, due to non-availability of sufficient incriminating material and report of the police authorities, appellant-Peer Javed Iqbal Shah and Manzoor Hussain Shah were discharged. It appears to us that the learned trial Court remained of the view that for the purposes of the claim of malicious prosecution, initiation of proper prosecution in the sense of a leading evidence or issuance of summons to accused, is inevitable. The word ‘prosecution’ in the title of the action cannot be taken in some technical sense that it bears in the criminal law. The action for malicious prosecution is a class of civil proceedings. In Amin1 case, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council observed that it is much too narrow a view to say that on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code prosecution does not begin until there is the issue of a summons.

6.In Evans versus London Hospital Medical College and others2, the court has held that the claim of malicious prosecution can be maintained once the machinery of law is set in motion by the defendant in the suit for malicious prosecution.

“Muhammad Amin versus Jogendra Kumar Bannerjee and others” (1947) 49 MOMLR 584

“Evans v London Hospital Medical College and others” (1981) I AllER 715

7.Essentially, the foundation of the action lies in abuse of the process of the Court by wrongfully setting the law in motion. An action for malicious prosecution is designed to discourage the perversion of the machinery of justice for an improper purpose.

8.The Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Yousaf3 case, has taken notice of our societal norms that sometimes lodging of the first information report can create a public perception adverse to the reputation of the accused. For instance, a prior enmity or a family dispute or differences between two spouses lead to the lodging of a criminal case. In Niaz and others4 case the counter version was found false and after investigation claimant was exonerated. The Honourable Supreme Court upheld the decision to grant damages, while observing that Courts should be conscious to guard against the false implication of innocent persons in criminal cases and damages can be granted when accused is innocent, acquitted or discharged by the competent Court. A learned Division Bench of this Court in Rana Shaukat Ali Khan5 case has already noted that a litigant who incurred expenses in attending the investigation and suffered damage due to registration of a false case or wrong involvement in a first information report can be awarded damages for damage occurred to him.

9.We are also conscious of the fact that the spectres of being sued for malicious prosecution in the “Muhammad Yousaf versus Abdul Qayyum” (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 478)

“Niaz and others versus Abdul Sattar and others” (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 432)

“Rana Shaukat Ali Khan and 2 others versus Fayyaz Ahmad and 3 others” (2017 MLD 120)

event of failure would deter the citizen from bringing cases with merits and in good faith, who even otherwise may have moral or legal obligation to give information to the authorities with respect to any criminal wrong. The requirement to strike balance between the competing rights, duty and interest has been a concern not merely in Pakistan but it has been debated in other Countries. The same can only be resolved by requiring to prove ‘malice’ and then ‘absence of reasonable cause’, with certainty.

10.In Martin v. Watson6, the House of Lords has observed that where an individual falsely and maliciously gives information to a police officer, indicating that some person is guilty of a criminal offence and states that he is willing to give evidence in the Court, for the purposes of malicious prosecution, ‘prosecution’ stands procured by the complainant; there is no way of testing the truthfulness of such statements before the prosecution is brought and to deny any remedy to a person whose liberty has been interfered with as a result of unfounded and malicious accusations in such circumstances would constitute a serious denial of justice.

11.We are of the firm view that to found an action for damages for malicious prosecution based on criminal proceedings, the test, as also settled in Amin case (supra), is not whether the criminal proceedings have reached a stage at which they may be correctly described as a prosecution, but whether such proceedings have reached a stage at which damage to the claimant has resulted.

“Martin versus Watson” (1996) I A.C.74

12.Now we would like to examine the facts in the light of law regarding some other essentials of malicious prosecution. Undeniably, Mst. Rukhsar Bibi’s granddaughter and Amanat Ali’s son of respondent No. 1 were subjected to an acid attack. Report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency dated 18.03.2022, provisional medical report (Exh.D-4) and other reports including (Exh.D-5) confirm that material thrown on the faces of the said victims contained sulfuric acid and they suffered from burns, swelling and other serious harms. Respondent No. 1 did not conceal that the principal assailant was an unknown person and his face was covered. He disclosed the details of his belief about involvement of the appellant, Manzoor Hussain Shah and Muhammad Dilbar Shah, behind this incident. The principal basis for this suspicion is desertion of the daughter of respondent No. 1 by Manzoor Hussain Shah and respondent No. 1 asked the suspect to refrain from accompanying his granddaughter-survivor.

13.False accusations of offences including sexual offences, by no means is uncommon in our society, however, it does not mean to discourage the people having reasonable belief approaching the authorities out of fear of an action for malicious prosecution. As already observed, there is no way of testing the generality of such complaints before the inquiry or investigation, and sometimes, before prosecution. We can only maintain the balance by placing higher standard of proof of ‘malice’ and absence of ‘reasonable and probable cause’ as observed

in Gliniski v. Mciver7. Although, it should not be as high as in criminal cases. In order to have ‘reasonable and probable cause’, one does not have to believe that the proceedings will succeed. It is enough, on the material on which he acted, there was a proper case to lay before the authorities and the Court.

14.To establish ‘malice’, the claimant must prove that the other deliberately misuses the process of law. For example, when defendant has brought the action knowing that the allegations were without foundation or proceedings are not for the bona fide purpose of trying that particular issue, but to secure some extraneous benefit to which he has no colour of right8.

15.It is also well settled that ‘reasonable and probable cause’ and ‘malice’ are to be proved independently. The inference of ‘malice’ from the absence of ‘reasonable and probable cause’ has very limited scope9. Courts must take ‘malice’ as an independent element, which has to be proved with certainty and clarity.

16.The appellant has also raised the claim against the police officials / respondents No. 2 and 3. It is alleged that the police officials acted in collusion with respondent No. 1. The appellant appeared as PW-1 and acknowledged that upon receiving information of a cognizable offence the police is required to record the statement under section 154 of the Cr.P.C. He admitted “Gliniski v. Mciver” [1962] A.C. 726

“Willers v. Joyce and another” [2016] UKSC 43 . Also see “Muhammad Yousaf v. Abdul Qayyum” (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 478)

“United Bank Limited and 5 others v. Raja Ghulam and 4 others” (1999 PLC 106)

that he has no enmity with respondent No. 1 who lodged the FIR. It is important to take notice of the fact that respondent No. 2 conducted the investigation and reached to the conclusion that the appellant is not involved in the incident, which formed the basis of the discharge of the accused persons. He admitted that the investigation by police officials was never challenged. It is also admitted that father-in-law of PW-1 (Manzoor Hussain Shah) contracted a second marriage with Mst. Sumera Bibi. He had no son from his first wedlock, which was one of the reasons for his second marriage but only a female child (Mst. Rukhsar Bibi-survivor) was born from this marriage. No question was asked to DW-2 / complainant-respondent No. 1 regarding the incident that he alleged about restraining Dilbar Shah and Javed Shah to accompany Mst. Rukhsar Bibi while going to school.

17.The chain of events is such that it cannot be safely concluded that respondent No. 1 acted with malice or to obtain some other benefit than the legitimate pursuit of criminal proceedings. The allegation of collusion between the police officials and respondent No. 1 is wholly unfounded. The appellant failed to prove ‘malice’ with requisite clarity.

18.The appeal fails. No order as to costs.

(Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) (Sultan Tanvir Ahmad) Judge Judge

Approved for reporting

Iqbal* Judge Judge