' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---A suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs,200,00,000 (two crores) as damages for malicious prosecution was dismissed by the trial Court through judgment.
Dated 14-12-1995 against which appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment, dated 16-2-2000 against which leave is sought.
2. A case was registered against the petitioner under sections 468,471, 420 and 406, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R.
No,562/79 on 13-10-1979 lodged at Police Station, Mughalpura, Lahore, at the instance of the respondent No,3. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was allowed to charge paisa 25 (twenty five) per student for checking eye sight for which an amount of Rs,53,500 was due to the petitioner whereas he received an amount of Rs,172,282. The trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to two years R.I. With a fine of Rs,1,00,000 on two counts. In appeal the learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that it was not a case of sections 406/420, P.P.C. But, of a civil liability and the department should have resorted to the civil proceedings for recovery of the said excess amount. The petitioner was acquitted on acceptance of the appeal on the said ground.
3. The State did not challenge the said judgment any further. The petitioner filed present suit for recovery of damages on account of malicious prosecution. Paras 3 and 9 of the plaint are relevant in order to determine whether the case of malicious prosecution was made out, therefore, the same are reproduced below:--- "3. That in the year 1978, the plaintiff was astonished to receive information from the defendant No,1 that he is not going' to comply with the directions of the Ministry of Education against which plaintiff sent the report to the Ministry of Education and a summary was also sent to the President of Pakistan on 6-12-1978. On the receipt of summary of the plaintiff, the Chief Martial Law Administrator's Secretariat issued a letter to the Ministry of Education upon which progress report was called from the provincial Government by the Ministry of Education, Islamabad.
9. That the registration of criminal case and its trial amounts to malicious prosecution. The plaintiff, by facing the investigation of the case, trial of the case, filing appeal, suffered Mental torture due to which he could not put his heart and soul in the work and remained mentally confused and upset on account of this prolonged frivolous and malicious prosecution for about 12 years. He also suffered financially."
4. The perusal of above paragraphs in particular and the plaint as a whole in general would show that there was no specific allegation of specific mala fide on account of any personal grudge attributed to any of the defendants which was basis for registration of a criminal case against the petitioner. It appears that the case was registered on the basis of the complaint received by the Martial Law Authorities which had directed the authorities in the Education Department to get a criminal case registered. Mere registration of a case in these circumstances would not by itself be proof of the same being malicious unless it was proved through evidence that the same was motivated by personal grudge nourished by the nature of the F.I.R. Against the petitioner.
5. The Criminal Appellate Court also did not find that the said amount was not due from the petitioner rather a finding was recorded that the department could recover the excess amount by resorting to the civil proceedings, therefore, if the authorities in the Education Department on the direction of Marital Law Authorities had got a criminal case registered, the same could not be held to be malicious prosecution, particularly when the trial Court convicted the petitioner which itself was proof of the fact that there existed reasonable grounds to lodge F.I.R.
6. The learned counsel submitted that the agreement was for five years term and the petitioner, under the agreement, was entitled to get 25 paisa per student for checking their eye sight during the said period but due to premature cancellation of the agreement he has suffered damages. The alleged premature cancellation of the agreement of five years and damages suffered due to its cancellation is a separate and independent cause of action. The petitioner may seek remedy independently, if any available under the law.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.