' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The petitioner moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Director Anti-Corruption, complaining that some mutation has been procured fraudulently by the respondent in connivance with the Revenue officials; an inquiry was conducted, in which no element of fraud was found; thereafter, the respondent brought a suit for damages against the petitioner, on account of malicious prosecution, which was contested by the petitioner and has been decreed to the extent of Rs.20,000 by the trial Court; the appeal of the petitioner has failed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the cases reported as Abdul Rauf v. Abdul Razzak and others (PLD 1994 SC 476) and Subedar (Retd.) Fazal-e-Rehim v. Rabnawaz (1999 SCMR 700) has argued that for the purposes of maintaining an action for the malicious prosecution, six essential ingredients have to be established; the petitioner was neither prosecuted by any Court of law, nor has ever been arrested; even the case was not registered by the Anti-Corruption, it is only a preliminary inquiry, which was held, therefore, the suit of the respondent was misconceived and was liable to be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case reported Syed Ghayyur Hussain Shah v. Gharib Alam (PLD 1990 Lahore 432) and Naseer Ali Shah v. Abdul Ghani (PLD 2004 Lahore 7) to submit that even moving an application to the police authorities, when some inquiry is conducted, which terminates against the complainant, tantamounts to the prosecution and therefore, the suit for the malicious prosecution was rightly decreed by the learned Courts below.
4. Heard. The law laid down in the above referred judgments by the Honourable Supreme Court is undoubtedly clear; the prosecution being under the law, envisaged to maintain an action for the malicious prosecution is that the matter should be proceeded by a Court of law; secondly the liberty of a person should have been interfered on account of any complaint to the requisite quarter, but in this case, this ingredient is also missing. According to the law, all the six ingredients mentioned in the above referred judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, must co-exist and failing one, no case for malicious prosecution is sustainable; this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Courts below and their judgments/deczges are against the Honourable Supreme Court's judgments and thus cannot be sustained.
In the light of above, by allowing this petition, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside with the result that the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff, stands dismissed.