' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 27-1-2000 the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint, it was stated that a case under section 377/511 P.P.C. Was registered against a son and a grandson of the petitioner at Police Station Saddar, Samundri on 26-8-1997. The complainant was Fiaz Rasool while the victim was complainant's brother Shahbaz Rasool. The accused persons were sent up for trial. They Were acquitted by a learned Judicial Magistrate under section 249-A Cr.P.C.
The respondent had no connection with the said case. He was neither a complainant nor a.
Witness therein. However, the petitioner proceeded to file a complaint against the respondent under sections 182/109/34 P.P.C. Before a Judicial Magistrate, Samundri, on 8-2-1999 who proceeded to summon the respondent through arrest warrants. He suffered a great mental agony.
Thereafter, the case was sent to the Sessions Judge; Faisalabad, who entrusted the matter to S.D.M., Samundri, who dismissed the complaint on 10-11-1999 and acquitted the respondent and other accused persons. It was stated to be a false and malicious prosecution. He claimed damages in the sum of Rs,24,000. The petitioner filed a written statement. He simply stated that the respondent had not suffered any damages. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for vide judgment and decree dated 23-5-2002. On a first appeal, the decree was modified by a learned Additional District Judge, Samundri, on 12-11-2002, who reduced the damages to Rs,18,000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgment and decree has been passed in violation of the settled rules governing the matter of malicious prosecution. No, one has turned up for the respondent.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. I have already noted above the contents of the respective pleadings of the parties. Admittedly, the respondent was prosecuted by the petitioner under section 182/109/34 P.P.C. And he was acquitted. The petitioner himself appeared as D.W.1. He admitted that he was not an accused in the said earlier F.I.R. He admitted that the named accused persons did not file any proceedings whatsoever against Fiaz Rasool complainant of the said F.I.R.
Or the respondent. He admitted that the respondent was neither complainant nor a witness in the said case. He then admitted that he had a grudge against the respondent because of the said case and that it was his endeavour to get the respondent punished.
' He admitted that his case was dismissed it was false.
4. To my mind, all the ingredient stand proved in the very statement of petitioner himself. The civil revision without any force and is according dismissed but without any orders as costs.
Petition dismis