' This civil revision is directed against judgments and decrees dated 6-4-2002 and 19-4-2003 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal whereby suit of the respondent was decreed and appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, respectively.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,24,000 as damages sustained by him on account of malicious prosecution by filing a private complaint under section 200, Cr.P.0 by the petitioner. The respondent pleaded in his plaint that he is a resident of village Chak Bhoun, District Chakwal and enjoyed a good reputation/respect amongst his brotherhood and surrounding villages being a thorough gentleman. It was further averred that the respondent is a religious man and, follows all the dictates of Islam by offering .Prayers etc. According to him, the petitioner filed a private complaint against him with false/baseless allegations against the respondent that his son of having committed offence under section 337-F(i), 426, 427/506, P.P.C, which remained under adjudication for about two years with two dates in each month, causing monetary loss and mental/physical torture to the respondent, besides lowering his respect in the eyes of his brotherhood/co-villagers. The respondent estimated his entire loss at Rs,24,000 and by splitting the same, demanded a decree for Rs,10,000 on account of expenses of litigation besides Rs,14,000 as compensation for mental torture/monetary loss because the private complaint of the petitioner was ultimately dismissed, being false.
3. The petitioner being defendant in the suit contested it by filing his written statement.
Controversial pleadings of the parties, necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence.
The learned Civil Judge who was seized of the matter after doing the needful decreed the suit of the respondent vide his judgment and decree dated 6-4-2002.
4. The petitioner aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court dated 6-4-2002 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal but remained unsuccessful as his appeal was dismissed vide appellate judgment and decree dated 19-4-2003. Thereafter the petitioner filed instant revision petition wherein the respondent appeared in response to notice by this Court and is represented through his counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent could not prove any mental/physical torture or monetary loss sustained by him on account of filing private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C, hence, his suit could not be decreed awarding him damages of Rs,24,000.
He further submitted that the respondent neither pleaded in the plaint nor deposed while in the witness box regarding his social/economic status, in absence of which, his suit deserved dismissal.
He further elaborated his arguments by urging that all the six prerequisites namely;
(i) That the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant;
(ii) That the prosecution ended in plaintiff's favour;
(iii) That the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause;
(iv) That the defendant was actuated malice;
(v) That the proceedings had interfered with plaintiff's liberty and had also affected her reputation; and family;
(vi) That the plaintiff had suffered damage.
' Needed for a plaintiff to be proved at the trial of suit for damages, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subedar (Recd.) Fazale Rahim v. Rab Nawaz (1999 SCM R 700) were not proved, disentitling him to the relief prayed but a contrary view taken by the two Courts below is not in consonance with the law. He further submitted that mere dismissal of private complaint filed by the petitioner, cannot expose him to the charge of malicious prosecution unless it was proved by him that the prosecution was initiated without any reasonable cause.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent refuted the arguments of the petitioner, supported the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below and urged that private complaint of the petitioner was dismissed on merits with a finding that the same was false and baseless and the order of the trial Court was not challenged by him in appeal/revision thus, it was enough proof that those proceedings were started maliciously and were fake. He further submitted that the petitioner while in the witness box admitted entire case of the respondent which fulfilled all the pre- requisites, fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that since the respondent had committed no cognizable offence, he wrongly initiated fake criminal litigation for long two years which resulted in his disgrace and mental/physical torture. It was also contended on behalf of the respondent that concurrent findings of facts returned by the two Courts below after due appraisal of evidence are not open to interfere by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
7. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Prosecution by the petitioner through a private complaint and its ultimate dismissal is not denied by the petitioner. Dismissal of private complaint on merits and desertion of those .Proceedings by not filing any appeal/revision before the higher forum proved on the file that those were initiated without any reasonable/just cause. It remained a fact that fake criminal proceedings cannot be started without any malice on part of the. Initiator.
Had there been no malice on part of the petitioner, he should have challenged the order of dismissal on this complaint passed by the trial Court. The petitioner while appearing as his own witness as D.W.1, admitted in his cross-examination that he did file a complaint which remained pending for two years and he produced Ghulam Qadir and Muhammad Ali as his witnesses. He also deposed that he did not approach the local police before filing the complaint and that, the respondent is a big landlord of the area and enjoys respect in his brotherhood. Towards the end of his cross-examination, he stated that it is not only the respondent who sustained loss on account of criminal proceedings but he also suffered alike damages. This statement of the petitioner himself left no room to hold that the respondent did not suffer loss as claimed by him in his plaint.
The respondent also produced P.W.2 Muhammad Riaz who rendered material corroboration to his statement as P.W.1, both these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but veracity of their statements could not be shattered. In rebuttal the petitioner only himself appeared as D.W.1, but his self-serving statement with admissions in cross-examination as noted above, was not enough to dismiss the suit of the respondent.
8 . Besides the above noted facts, the petitioner had claimed maltreatment at the hands of the respondent and allegedly suffered injuries out of this scuffle leading to filing of private complaint against the respondent wherein it was alleged that the respondent was armed with Lathi whereas his son Nayyar Iqbal was armed with hatchet and both of them being armed with lethal weapons be laboured him through Lathi and blunt side of hatchet. Judgment dated 12-10-1995 delivered on complaint of the petitioner (Exh.P-2) gave a finding that the petitioner did not get himself medically examined and also did not produce any medical evidence in support of his claimed injuries, in spite of his claimed, remaining admitted in two hospitals i,e, Civil Hospital Chakwal and Fauji Foundation Hospital, Rawalpindi. Absence of any medical evidence in the complaint filed by the petitioner, supported the claim of malicious prosecution by the respondent and was not unfounded.
9. For the reasons noted above, both the Courts below correctly appraised the evidence on the file and did not commit any illegality/irregularity of misreading/non-reading of evidence. Concurrent findings of facts returned in consonance with the record, are immune from interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a long chain of consistent judgments i,e, in the cases of Mst.Shumal Begum v. Mst. Gulzar Begum and 3 others (1994 SCM R 818) Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore and another -v. Saeed Ahmad Khan (PLD 1994 SC 291), Sirbaland v Allah Loke and others (1996 SCM R 575), Abdul Hakeem v. Habibullah and 11 others (1997 SCM R 1139), Mst. Ameer Begum v. Muhammad Naeem Khan and another (PLD 2000 SC 839) and Mst, Kaniz Fatima through legal heirs v.
Muhammad Saleem and 27 others (2001 SCM R 1493). This petition accordingly has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.