' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-3-2010, whereby Additional District Judge, Balakot, on acceptance of appeal of respondent, set aside the judgment and decree of learned trial Court and decreed the suit of plaintiff/respondent to the extent of Rs,25,000 with costs throughout.
2. Respondent instituted a suit for recovery of Rs,2,00,000 as damages on account of malicious prosecution on account of his false involvement in case F.I.R. No,77 registered under sections 11/16 of the Offence of Zina. Petitioner appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement and learned trial Court after recording evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26-11-2009. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred appeal and learned appellate court vide impugned judgment decreed the suit of respondent to the extent of Rs,25,000. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that learned trial Court on appraisal of evidence on record rightly dismissed the suit of respondent but learned appellate court on the basis of conjectures and surmises reversed the well reasoned judgment of trial Court and decreed the suit of the respondent. Was argued that since the judgment and decree of appellate court is the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and against the facts, therefore, liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposed the contentions of petitioners and supported the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate Court.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. A perusal of record would show that vide F.I.R. No,77 dated 17-10-2006, the petitioner, mother of abductee has charged the respondent besides Ashfaq and Gul Zaryan for her daughter's elopement but in fact the daughter of the petitioner had eloped with Ashfaq to whom she had married later on. The respondent on account of such involvement faced the rigours of investigation and remained behind the bars for forty days and, as such, suffered mental agony due to his false implication in the case. It appears that respondent has got no concern whatsoever with the co- accused Ashfaq and had not participated in any manner in elopement of the daughter of the petitioner.
7. In view of the record and evidence of the parties, it is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic elements on the basis of which suit for recovery of malicious prosecution could be accepted or rejected;
(a) The prosecution of the respondent/plaintiff by the petitioner/ defendant.
(b) There must be a want of reasonable and probable cause for that prosecution.
(c) The petitioner /defendant must have acted maliciously i,e, with a improbable motive and not to further the ends of justice.
(d) The prosecution must have ended in favour of the person proceeded against.
(e) It must have caused damage to the party proceeded against.
8. The apex Court laid down the following principles qua the granting or refusing damages with regard to malicious prosecution in Muhammad Akram's case PLD 1990 SC 28 which are as follows:- -
(i) That the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant.
(ii) That the prosecution ended in plaintiff's failure.
(iii) That the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause.
(iv) That the defendant was actuated by malice.
(v) That the proceeding had interfered with plaintiff's liberty and had also affected her reputation.
9. It is a settled law that first appellate Court has all the powers under section 96 of the C.P.C. To reappraise the entire evidence on record and in the instant case the appellate Court has rightly evaluated the evidence on record wherein there exists no reason or justification to charge the respondent by the petitioner for the abduction of her daughter. Neither the abductee was recovered from the, possession of the respondent, subsequently nor after the recovery abductee has charged the respondent for his involvement. It is on record that the abductee eloped and subsequently contracted in marriage/nikah.
10. I have also re-examined the entire evidence with the able assistance of the counsel for the parties, and in the interest of justice and fair-play and of the view that the appellate Court was justified to award nominal damages to the respondent. It is a high time to put the public on right path to promote the law of tort. According to the decisions of the superior courts as well it is time to save the nation from the agony of telling lies or involving innocent persons in criminal cases, then the only solution to stop this frivolous litigation for the purpose of taking revenge from the other side is to file suits for damages as and when the competent forum has declared the accused persons as innocent acquitted/discharged by the competent court so that prosecution must lodge genuine cases.
11. The learned appellate court in the light of false involvement of respondent by the petitioner and on the basis of evidence on record rightly passed the impugned decree, which is maintained.
12. Consequently, this revision petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.