Nadir Law Associates

کنسٹرکشن کمپنی کے مالک کو اغواء کرنے والا اشتہاری مجرم گرفتار،

تھانہ گنجمنڈی میں دہشگردی اغواء برائے تاوان اورد یگر دفعات کے تحت فروری 2022میں مقدمہ درج کیا گیا تھا،

اشتہاری مجرم کی شناخت شفیق الرحیم کے نام سے ہوئی،

اشتہاری مجرم خود کوحساس ادارے کا سینئر افسر ظاہر کرتا تھا،

مجرم نے ساتھیوں کے ہمراہ اسلحہ کی نوک پر کنسٹرکشن کمپنی کے مالک کو اغواء کرکے تاوان کا مطالبہ کیا تھا،

اشتہاری مجرم کے دیگر08 ساتھی ذیشان، ولی،عامر،عبدالقدیر،شہباز،بدر فاروق،حیدر،کامران گرفتار ہو کر چالان ہو چکے ہیں،

اشتہاری مجرم جڑواں شہروں میں اغواء، رابری،اقدام قتل جیسے سنگین مقدمات میں ریکارڈ یافتہ ہے،

Detail regarding legal status of private housing schemes in RDA's controlled area

راولپنڈی ترقیاتی ادارے کے زیر انتظام علاقے میں پرائویٹ ہاؤسنگ سکیموں کی قانونی حیثیت

2022 SCMR 2040
فوجداری مقدمات میں اگر دو ملزمان پر ایک جیسے دعویداری ہو،اور ایک ملزم کی کی ضمانت مجاز عدالت منظور کر لیں اور چیلنج بھی نہ ہو،توایسے حالات میں ساتھی ملزم کی ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری یا ضمانت گرفتاری کی حقدار ہونگیں
The role ascribed to the petitioners cannot be distinguished from the co-accused who has been granted post-arrest bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction which remains unchallenged, any order by this Court on any technical ground that the consideration for pre-arrest bail and post- arrest bail are entirely on different footing, would be only limited upto the arrest of the petitioners because of the reason that soon after their arrest they would become entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), Kazim Ali and others vs. The State and others (2021 SCMR 2086), Muhammad Kashif Iqbal vs. The State and another (2022 SCMR 821) and Javed Iqbal vs. The State through Prosecutor General of Punjab and another (2022 SCMR 1424).

PLJ 2022 Lahore 423
شک کے فائدے پر ملزم بری ہو تو ہرجانے کا دعویٰ نہیں کر سکتا۔
Malicious Prosecution--
----Recovery of damages--Acquittal due to deficient proof--Ingredients of malicious prosecution--Respondent No. 1 under law was duty bound to prove that defendants acted without any reasonable and probable cause and defendant was actuated by malice and proceedings had interfered with plaintiffs liberty and had also affected his reputation. No ingredients of malicious prosecution had been proved by Respondent No. 1--He was acquitted only on ground that prosecution has failed to prove case against accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt--When an-accused is acquitted by Court on, basis of benefit of doubts or prosecution's failure to-prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then recovery of damages on of malicious prosecution are not available in said case--Mere acquittal of Respondent No. 1 in criminal case by extending him benefit of doubt is not sufficient by itself to establish a case for malicious prosecution--Facts and consistent law on subject has not been taken into consideration by Courts below illegally passed impugned judgments & decrees on basis of misreading and non-reading of evidence as well as against record and mis application of law which are not sustainable and liable to be set-aside--Revision petition allowed. [Pp. 428, 431 & 433] B, C, D & E
1999 SCMR 700, PLD 2020 Sindh 700, 2020 CLC 1331,
2018 MLD 1202 and 2016 SCMR 24 ref.
Ingredients for Melecious Prosecution--
----Recovery of damages--
i) That Plaintiff was prosecuted by the Defendant;
ii) That the prosecution ended in favour of the Plaintiff;
iii) That the Defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause;
iv) That the Defendant was actuated by malice (with. improbable motive and not to further the ends of justice); and
v) That the proceedings had interfered with the Plaintiffs liberty and had also affected his reputation and the Plaintiff had suffered damages. [P. 427] A
Rana Muhammad Akmal Khan, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms. Naila Mushtaq Dhoon and Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad Dhoon, Advocates for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2.11.2021.
Judgment
Through this civil revision, the petitioners have challenged the legality of judgment & decree dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot who decreed the suit for Recovery of damages on the basis of malicious prosecution to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- filed by Respondent No. 1 whereas to the extent of Defendants No. 4 to 8 suit was dismissed and judgment & decree dated 16.09.2019 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sialkot who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 1,01,50,000/- on the basis of malicious prosecution against the petitioners/defendants contending therein that he was retired clerk in Pakistan Army and was residing in Rawalpindi, Muhammad Boota, the real brother of defendant No. 1 was murdered on the mid-night of 28/29-06-2000. Defendant No. 1 got registered an FIR No. 440/2000 under section 34, 449, 460, 449, 302 PPC at Police Station, Uggoki against unknown persons. Through a supplementary statement dated 07.07.2000, defendants nominated Respondent No. 1/plaintiff as well as Hafiz Ghulam Hussain, Amjad Hussain and Muhammad Asghar as accused persons in the said criminal case. The Respondent No. 1/plaintiff was being army personnel could not be arrested and was declared proclaimed offender. Later on, Respondent No. 1 was arrested and after trial he was acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 11.10.2008, Respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed present suit for recovery (Rs. 1,01,50,000/-) on the basis of malicious prosecution against the petitioners contending therein that he was involved falsely and collusively in the said criminal case. Thus he suffered mental & physical agony injury to reputation, etc. and is entitled to receive damages as prayed for.
Petitioners appeared and filed contesting written statement by taking all the factual and legal pleas. The learned trial Court framed relevant issues, recorded pro and contra evidence of the parties and decree the suit on 23.02.2016 to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- against the petitioners whereas to the extent of defendants No. 4 to 8 suit was dismissed. The appeal of the petitioners was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide order dated 16.09.2019. Hence, this civil revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at some length and gone through the record with their able assistance.
4. The main controversy involves in this case revolves upon Issue Nos. 4 to 8 which are reproduced as under:-
"4. Whether the alleged prosecution ended in favour of the plaintiff? OPP
5. Whether the alleged prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause? OPP
6. Whether the alleged prosecution was initiated against the plaintiff oh the: basis of malice? OPP
7. Whether the alleged prosecution caused mental, physical reputation and financial loss to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 1,01,50000/-? OPP
8. Whether-the plaintiff is entitled to damage for malicious prosecution as prayed for? OPP"
Onus probandi of the above issues was placed upon the shoulders of Respondent No. 1/plaintiff. He as a sole witness appeared as FW-1 and stated that he was employee of Pakistan Army and got retirement. That brother of Muhammad Iqbal. namely Muhammad Boota was murdered oh 28/29-06-2000 and Ghulam Rasool was injured in the occurrence Muhammad Iqbal got registered FIR against him (plaintiff) and Hafiz Ghulam Rasool, Amjad Hussain, Asghar were also nominated on 10.10.2000. Hafiz Ghulam Rasool, Amjad Hussain and Asghar were acquitted. The plaintiff being employee of the Pakistan Army could not be arrested and was declared proclaimed offender. Later on, he was arrested, faced the trial and was also acquitted. That he has three daughters and one son but none of his children got education due to his incarceration. He became patient of Asthama, Had-he not been involved in the criminal case then he would have continued his job or obtained any alternative job in Civil Department, He bears the expenses/expenditures of the Advocate. He was acquitted in the said case due to deficient prove of his involvement in offence of murder of brother of the defendant. Due to this criminal case, he lost his reputation in the society. He spent huge amount during his being behind the bars and also suffered loss of reputation and faced mental and physical agony etc. In cross examination he deposed as under:
میں اپنے علاوہ کوئی دیگر گواہ پیش نہ کرنا چاہتاہوں۔
Further deposed that he was promoted as Havaldar in the year 1992 and got retirement in the year 2001. He received all the dues from the Government. He himself got retirement. He came to know in October, 2000 that he is nominated in the criminal case. Further deposed as under:
علم ہونے سے گرفتاری تک میں نے نہ پولیس سے رابطہ کیا اور نہ عدالت سے میں اس دوران پولیس سے چھپتا تھا میں آرمی میں ملازمت کرتا تھا ۔ جب میں گرفتار ہوا تب آرمی سے ریٹائر ہو چکا تھا ۔ میں ریٹائر منٹ کے بعد سول ملازمت کر تارہا ہوں ۔ جب میں گر فتار ہوا تب بھی میں سول ملازمت کر تا تھا ۔ میرے علم میں تھا مجھے مقدمہ میں نامزد کر دیا گیا ہے ۔ لیکن پھر بھی میں نے کسی سے کوئی رابطہ نہ کیا ۔ میں جب اشتہاری ہوا تھا آرمی میں تھا ۔۔۔۔۔۔ یہ درست ہے کہ میرے بری ہونے میں تاخیر میری وجہ سے ہوئی ہے ۔ دوران ریمانڈ پولیس نے میرے ساتھ بدتمیزی کی تھی ۔ جو میں نے اپنے عرضی دعوی میں لکھی ہے ۔ میں نے بد سلوکی کی شکایت کسی آفیسر سے نہ کی تھی کیونکہ میری کوئی سنتا ہی نہ تھا ۔ اس بد سلوکی کی شکایت ٹرائل کورٹ یاکسی مجسٹریٹ کورٹ میں تحریری نہ کی تھی ۔ میں جو دوران قید بیمار ہوا میں نے ٹرائل کورٹ کو کبھی کوئی درخواست نہ دی ۔ میں نے جیل میں جیل کے ڈاکٹر سے معائنہ کروایا تھا جیل میں معائنہ تحریری نہ ہو تا ہے ۔ میں نے مستقل دمہ کے مریض کے ثبوت کے طور پر کوئی دستاویز لف نہ کی ہے ۔۔۔۔ میں نے پولیس کی جانب سے جانبداری کرنے کی تفتیش تبدیل کروانے کے لیے کسی Forum میں درخواست نہ دی تھی ۔ کیونکہ میری کوئی سنتا نہ تھا ۔ میں نے تفتیش تبدیل کروانے کے لیے کسی عدالت سے رجوع بھی نہ کیا ۔ فوجداری مقدمہ کے دوران شہادت میرے خلاف پیش ہوئی تھی ۔۔۔۔ یہ درست ہے کہ پولیس نے مجھے گہنگار قرار دے کر عدالت میں تیتمہ چلان پیش کیا ۔ ۔۔۔ میرا ذہنی توازن بھی درست ہے ۔ میں اپنی پنشن خود وصول کر تاہوں ۔ میں اپنے گھر کے کام کاج اچھے طویقے سے کر رہا ہوں ۔ اس وقت میری عمر 55 سال کے قریب ہے ۔ میں عمر کے حساب سے میری صحت اللہ کے شکر سے ٹھیک ہے ۔ میری بیماری وغیرہ کا علاج C. M. H میں فری ہو تا ہے ۔ محمد اقبال نے قتل کی اطلاع پولیس کو دی تھی ۔ یہ درست ہے کہ قتل کے مقدمہ کی تفتیش کر کے اس میں بے گناہ کر نا یا گنہگار کر نا پولیس کا کام ہے ۔۔۔۔ اس مقدمہ کی وجہ سے مجھے Dismiss from service نہ کیا گیا تھا ۔ میں نے ریٹائر منٹ خود لی تھی ۔
The respondent/plaintiff did not produce any other independent witness in support of his assertions.
5. The essentials requirements in the suit for damages for malicious prosecution are as under:
i) That Plaintiff was prosecuted by the Defendant;
ii) That the prosecution ended in favour of the Plaintiff;
iii) That the Defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause;
iv) That the Defendant was actuated by malice (with. improbable motive and not to further the ends of justice); and
v) That the proceedings had interfered with the Plaintiffs liberty and had also affected his reputation and the Plaintiff had suffered damages.
Admittedly brother of the petitioner/defendant was murdered, as such an offence was occurred. Thus just and probable cause was in existence to lodge a criminal case. It was mandatory for the plaintiff to dislodge the above through corroborative and affirmative evidence but the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff failed to prove any non-existence of reasonable and probable cause.