Syed Umar Ayaz Shah Vs Mir Qasim

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

BANNU BENCH

(Judicial Department)

No.269-

Syed Umar AYaz Shah

Vs Mir Qasim

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 13.10.2025

F'orpetitioner(s): Sved Zahir-ud-Din Advocate *,k*****

TAIUO .r.- Through the

instant civil revision petition, filed under Section I 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), the

G

petitioner has called into question the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Bannu, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2024 of Civil Judge-VII, Bannu, dismissing his suit for recovery of damages, was upheld.

2.Briefly stated, the facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner, Syed [Jmar Ayaz Shah, instituted a suit for recovery of Its.25,00,000/- as damages on account of malicious prosecution against the respondent, Mir Qasim, alleging that the latter had lodged a false and baseless criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

a against him and his sons, namely, Syed Tasawar Ayaz Shah and Mudassir Ayaz Shah, who were arrayed as proforma defendants. It was averred that pursuant to the said complaint, the petitioner and his sons faced the agonies of a protracted trial after being charge sheeted under Sections 448,341, 427, and 34 PPC, and after a full-fledged trial, they were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate-Ill, Bannu, vide order dated 28.02.2019. The petitioner claimed that due to the false prosecution, he and his family suffered mental torture, financial loss, and 4 damage to reputation, entitling him to compensation amounting to Rs.25,00,000/-.

3.The respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement, denying all allegations and asserting that the complaint was filed bona fide and upon reasonable grounds. The Trial Court framed the various issues, both legal and factual, recorded evidence from both sides, and upon conclusion of the trial, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10.07.2024, holding that the petitioner failed to prove essential ingredients of malicious prosecution. The petitioner's appeal before the Additional District Judge-I, Bannu, met the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 18.06.2025. Hence, this revision petition

4;. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5.Perusal of the record reveals that in the complaint proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the petitioner and his sons were charge-sheeted under Sections 448, 34t, 427, and 34 PPC and, after trial, were acquitted vide order dated 28.02.2019. It is not in dispute that the prosecution terminated in favour of the petitioner;

however, it is equally well settled that mere acquittal from a criminal charge does not, by itself, furnish a cause of action for a suit of damages for malicious prosecution.

a The law requires fulfilment of certain cumulative conditions before a person can successfully maintain such a claim.

6.To sustain an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must affi rmatively prove :

(i)that he was prosecuted by the defendant;

(ii)that the prosecution terminated in his favour;

(iii)that it was instituted without reasonable and probable cause;

(iv)that it was actuated by malice ; and

(v)that the prosecution caused damage to his reputation, person, or property.

7.These elements have been consistently recognized by the Superior Courts in numerous pronouncements.

And in the case of Subedar (Rtd) Fazale Rahim Vs Rab Nawaz (1999 SCMR 700), it was held that the mere failure of a prosecution does not expose the

complainant to liability for malicious prosecution unless the plaintiff establishes, through convincing evidence, that the prosecution was initiated both without reasonable or probable cause and with malice.

8.Applying the above principles to the present case, it is evident that while the first two ingredients stand satisfied, the remaining essential elements have not been established. The acquittal of the petitioner and his sons was based upon the prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and was thus an acquittal on the 4 ground of benefit of doubt. Neither the order of acquittal nor the surrounding circumstances indicate that the complaint filed by the respondent was false, frivolous, or maliciously motivated. 'Ihe record further shows that the learned Magistrate, after examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and conducting the preliminary inquiry, found sufficient grounds to proceed and framed charge against the accused persons. Such judicial cognizance, founded on some material before the court, itself constitutes reasonable and probable cause, thereby negating the plea of malice or want of bona fides.

9.The element of malice, which is the cornerstone of a claim for malicious prosecution, must be proved affirmatively and cannot be inferred merely from the absence of success in criminal proceedings. Malice in

n law is not merely ill-will or spite, but the intentional use of legal process for a purpose other than that for which it was designed. The petitioner was bound to demonstrate through direct or circumstantial evidence that the respondent acted with the dominant motive of causing him injury or humiliation rather than with an honest belief in the truth of the complaint. No such evidence is forthcoming from the record.

10.Equally, the petitioner was under a legal obligation a to establish the damages allegedly suffered by him. He neither pleaded nor proved the heads or extent of such damages with any particularity. The plaint merely contains a lump-sum claim of Rs.25,00,000/- without any quantification or supporting evidence. No witness was produced to substantiate loss of reputation or mental agony, nor was any documentary or medical evidence adduced to prove the alleged suffering. The courts below have rightly observed that damages cannot be presumed or awarded on conjectural assertions.

11.Both the courts below have concurrently held, on proper appreciation of evidence, that the prosecution launched by the respondent was not devoid of reasonable cause, and that malice was neither pleaded with particulars nor proved. Their findings are based on sound reasoning and are supportcd by evidence on record. The

A

scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section I 15 CPC is limited to cases where the subordinate courts have acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted with material irregularity in the exercise of such jurisdiction. No such infirmity, illegality, or jurisdictionat defect has been demonstrated in the impugned judgments.

12.In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the courts belorv have committed no illegality or material irregularity in concurrently dismissing the petitioner's claim. Their findings are well reasoned, consonant with law, and do not call for interference by this Court.

13.Consequently, this civil revision petition stands dismissed in lirnine.

utL Announced 13.t0.2025 (Ghafoor Zaman'1

JUDGE

qtAstrD

dz

dXdltolV" 1rt ' t

(S.8.) Hon'ble Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi