' On 22-11-1994 the plaintiff Muhammad Feroz Panjani filed the suit for recovery of Rs,2 crore as damages against Mrs. Mehr-un-Nisa and her husband Muhammad Younus Bawany.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, defendant No,1 and Abdul Razzak, father of the plaintiff formed a partnership firm in the name of BEXSHIM Corporation. The share of the profit of the partners was fixed at 51% for defendant No,1, 27% for Abdul Razzak and 22% for the plaintiff. Through a resolution it was decided that the business viz., import and export of the firm was to be carried out under the assistance and guidance of defendant No,2. It is alleged that the defendants were running another partnership business in the name of Violin Fashions (Pvt.) Limited. They required some financial assistance, because of the good relations between the parties, the plaintiff agreed to give surety/guarantee by mortgaging the property, bearing No,241/4-B, Block 2, PECHS, Karachi owned by the mother of the plaintiff for the loan of Rs,30 lac which was taken by the defendants from M/s. Allied Bank of Pakistan. The Bank released the amount to the defendants. Thereafter, in the month of July 1994, the defendants pressurized the plaintiff to give further surety, but he refused, therefore, relations between the parties became strained. On 9-8-1994 the defendants forcibly removed the plaintiff from the office of partnership business and did not allow him to enter into the office. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the Suit No,852 of 1994 before the Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South for injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff, but in spite of that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the premises. On 2-10-1994 the defendant No,2 filed a written complaint before the Clifton Police Station against the plaintiff and his father Abdul Razzak.
The written complaint was incorporated in 154, Cr.P.C. Book as crime No,427 of 1994 under sections 420/468/471/406, P.P.C. On 5-10-1994 the plaintiff was arrested and was in police custody till 16-10- 1994. Thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody. On 19-10-1994 the police submitted a report before the Magistrate for releasing the accused under section 169, Cr.P.C. As no evidence was found against the plaintiff. Therefore, on 20-10-1994 the plaintiff was released from the jail and subsequently the S.D.M. Cancelled the F.I.R. The plaintiff further alleged that he was arrested and sent to jail where he was treated as a third class criminal. The defendant No,2, levelled false, unfounded, baseless, misconceived and dishonest allegations against the plaintiff which had tarnished his goodwill and reputation. The plaintiff was mentally shocked and his reputation was destroyed in the eyes of business community and his goodwill was ruined. Therefore, he has claimed damages against the defendants, hence this suit.
3. The defendants were served. They filed the written statement in which they virtually admitted all the facts, but took the stand that the plaintiff had misappropriated the amount of firm and cheated the defendants, therefore, F.I.R. Was lodged by the defendant No,2. They further claimed that they never pressurized the plaintiff to provide financial assistance and he was never dispossessed from the premises of the firm. They admitted that the plaintiff had furnished guarantee in the shape of above mentioned plot of his mother with his own freewill, but he utilized the amount for himself.
They further took the plea that the police, in collusion with plaintiff, released the accused under section 169, Cr.P.C. They have shown ignorance about the arrest of the plaintiff by the police. They prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
4. Out of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-- ISSUES:
(1) Was the plaintiff subjected to harassment and mental torture by the defendants, if so, what is effect?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?
(3) What should the decree be?
5. I have heard the parties' Advocates perused the record of this case very carefully. My findings on the above issues are as under for the following reasons:-- Findings: {{TABLE}} Issue No,1 Issue No,2 Issue No,3 In affirmative. In affirmative The suit is decreed for an amount of Rs,1 crore with profits/mark-up at 15% per annum from the date of judgment till recovery of the amount against the defendant No,2 only.
Reasons: Issues No,1:
6. On this issue it is an admitted fact that the defendant No,2 had lodged the F.I.R. Which was investigated by the police. They submitted the report under section 169, Cr.P.C., on 19-9-1994 for release of the plaintiff as no evidence was found against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also produced the certified copy of F.I.R. And police report under section 169, Cr.P.C. A perusal of F.I.R.
Reveals that the plaintiff had filed a written complaint before the police which was incorporated in 154, Cr.P.C. Book on 2-10-1994 at 5-10 p.m. The F.I.R. Was registered for offences punishable under sections 406/420/468/471, P.P.C., on the said report the police found that cognizable offences were committed, therefore, F.I.R. Was incorporated in 154, Cr.P.C. Book. The police report under section 169, Cr.P.C. Has been filed which shows that the plaintiff was arrested on 5-10-1994. He was in police custody till 16-10-1994. Thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody. The report further reveals that from the investigation and the evidence collected by the police the complainant viz. Muhammad Younus Bawany, the defendant No,2 could not produce evidence against the plaintiff, therefore, no challan was produced in Court, but a request was made to the Magistrate for releasing the accused who was in custody. It appears that the learned Magistrate agreed with the police report and issued release writ of the plaintiff. Thus, it has been established beyond any shadow of doubt that the defendant No,2 lodged the F.I.R. For cheating, misappropriation of amount and forgery against the plaintiff, but the allegations made in the F.I.R. Were found to be baseless, hence the plaintiff, who was arrested on 5-10-1994, was released on 20-10-1994.
7. From the above facts it is clear that the defendant No,2 knew that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Were baseless and he had no evidence to substantiate his allegations, as such, the allegations, made in the F.I.R. Were levelled with mala fide intention in view of the background of the case and civil litigation pending between the parties.
8. The plaintiff is a businessm an, therefore, when he was arrested then it must had adversely affected his reputation and goodwill in the business community. The arrest of the plaintiff must have further destroyed his image created in his neighbourhood where he was residing and in the entire business community. Further, the plaintiff must have suffered mental shock as he was detained first in police custody from 5-10-1994 to 16-10-1994 and thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody and was confined in jail which must had further deteriorated his health and mental condition. As such, the defendant No,2 is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff for the IA above sufferings of the plaintiff.
9. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff further stated that the defendant No,1 is also liable to pay compensation as the property, which he had mortgaged with the Allied Bank of Pakistan, has been attached by the Court in a civil suit filed by the Bank for recovery of the amount. Therefore, the plaintiff has suffered losses due to said attachment of the property hence the defendants 1 and 2 are also liable to pay compensation.
10. It is pertinent to point out that no such allegation has been levelled in the plaint. In the plaint, in paras. 9 and 10, a reference was made with regard to said transaction, but no further plea was raised that the property was attached or that he suffered mental shock because of that reason.
From the record it is clear that the Allied Bank of Pakistan filed the suit in the year 1997 after three years of the filing of this suit. As such, when the suit was filed at that time no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff with regard to the judgment passed by the Banking Court in the said suit.
Furthermore, the plaintiff has shown that cause of action accrued to him on 9-8-1994 and on 2-10- 1994 as clear from para. 21 of the plaint. The date 9-8-1994 is the date on which it was alleged by the plaintiff that he was dispossessed from the partnership firm and the date 2-10-1994 is the date on which the F.I.R. Was lodged. As such, it is not the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that he had suffered losses because of the filing of suit under which his property was attached. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any compensation with regard to the said litigation at this stage. Thus, the evidence, led by the plaintiff on the above point, is out of pleadings, therefore, it cannot be considered.
11. After considering the material available on record I am of the considered view that the loss and sufferings suffered by the plaintiff because of the filing of criminal case against him by the defendant No,2, can be adequately compensated by awarding compensation of Rs,1 crore against the defendant No,2. The issue is replied accordingly.
12. In view of my findings on Issue No,1 the plaintiff is entitled to the decree against the defendant No,2 for an amount of Rs,1 crore with profits/mark-up at 15% per annum from the date of judgment till recovery. The suit is decreed against the defendant No,2 in the above terms with costs. Whereas the suit is dismissed against the defendant No,l. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.