1. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, J.--This appeal by leave of the Court arises out of the judgment dated 27.5.2016 passed by the learned High Court in civil appeal No, 128 of 2013.
2. 2.The facts necessary for disposal of the captioned appeal are that Wali Muhammad, plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs, 250,000/- against Muhammad Habib, appellant, herein, before the Court of Additional District Judge, Sehnsa on 11.9.2012 alleging therein, that the plaintiff is a respectable citizen. There is a lengthy civil litigation between the plaintiff and the defendant and due to the personal grudge, the defendant got lodged F.I.R. No, 103/2009 at Police Station, Sehnsa, whereupon, the plaintiff, among others, was apprehended and was kept behind the bars.
3. Thereafter, the plaintiff through an advocate obtained post arrest bail but the defendant, with mala-fide intention got inserted Sections 457, APC in the F.I.R; and the plaintiff was constrained to obtain pre-arrest bail in the above offence. It was alleged that thereafter, the defendant went in revision up to the High Court and the plaintiff, was compelled to engage counsel for prosecution of the cases on his behalf. After the necessary investigation the challan was submitted before the competent Court and the plaintiff faced trail for a period of more than two years and lastly the plaintiff-respondent, herein, was acquitted of the charge. It was claimed that due to the malicious prosecution initiated on behalf of the defendant-appellant, herein, the plaintiff had suffered the agony of criminal trial besides mental and psychological torture. The reputation of the plaintiff was also shacked due to the false allegation, therefore, a decree for recovery of Rs, 250,000/- as damages be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement, whereby the claim of the plaintiff was refuted and it was submitted that after the investigation, the Investigating Agency has filed the challan before the competent Court and the F.I.R. has been lodged in accordance with law. It was further stated that on 13.1.2016, the defendant has been acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt, hence, he is not entitled to any damages. The learned trial Court framed issues in the light of the pleadings of the parties and after framing the issues, directed them to lead evidence in support of their, respective claim. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 14.9.2013 granted decree of damages to the tune of Rs, 243,000/-in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and decree, the appellant, herein, filed an appeal before the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court on 13.11.2013. The learned High Court vide judgment dated 27.5.2016 has dismissed the appeal while maintaining the judgment of the trial Court.
4. 3.Ch. Manzoor Ahmed Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, contended that the respondent, herein, and others were not nominated in the F.I.R. by the appellant, herein, and they have been arrested after the investigation by the police, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution against the defendant was initiated with malice or with mala-fide intention. The learned Advocate argued that the plaintiff-respondent has not impleaded the Investigating '
5. Agency in the line of defendant nor the witnesses who have deposed against him before the police and subsequently before the trial Court were impleaded as defendant in the case, hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The learned Advocate argued that only slum amount was claimed by the plaintiff without giving its details and such a claim cannot be allowed under law. The learned Advocate argued that the prosecution of the defendant was not malicious, hence, he was not entitled to any relief. In support of his. submission, the learned Advocate placated reliance upon the case reported as Muhammad Latif Khan and 2 others vs. Muhammad Afsar Khan (2000 SCR 181).
6. 4.Conversely, Mr. Khalid Rasheed Chaudhry, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, vehemently argued that it is an admitted fact that there is an enmity over some piece of land between the parties and the F.I.R. has been lodged by the appellant, herein, with mala-fide intention in order to drag the plaintiff-respondent, herein, into an unnecessary litigation. He submitted that as a result of lodging of F.I.R, the plaintiff was arrested and subsequently he was released on bail. Due to arrest he has received mental shock and has also suffered loss to his reputation. The learned Advocate argued that the maximum amount which was claimed, has not been allowed by the trial Court, therefore, interference in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as the High Court is not justified. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate placed reliance on the case reported as Mst. Shamim vs. Sarfaraz (2013 MLD '1585).
7. 5.We have heard the learned Advocates representing the parties and gone through the record of the case. A perusal of the record reveals that F.I.R. No, 103/2009 was got registered by the appellant against the plaintiff-respondent at Police Station, Sehnsa. In pursuance of the aforesaid F.I.R., the respondent, herein, was arrested, however, later on, he was released on bail. A perusal of F.I.R. No, 103/2009 reveals that the appellant, herein, has not nominated the plaintiff-respondent directly in the case rather he has expressed his doubt due to previous enmity. After necessary proceedings, the police has challaned the respondent, which culminated into his acquittal. In our view, mere registration of a case against someone is not sufficient for awarding of damages until and unless it is proved that the registration of the case was with intention to defame the person or his family. It is further necessary to prove that the prosecution of the plaintiff-respondent was without any reasonable and probable cause.
8. In the present case, as per F.I.R. the buffalo of the plaintiff were died and he has not involved the plaintiff-respondent directly in the case, however, he has expressed his doubt regarding his involvement. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent that on the application of the appellant, the offence under Section 457, P.P.C. was added, hence, the intention of the appellant was very much clear, is devoid' of any force. It was the responsibility of the Investigating i Agency to conduct the inquiry/investigation in a lawful manner and add any offence, which appears to have been committed. The plaintiff had to prove that he was prosecuted by the defendant without any reasonable and probable cause, otherwise, mere acquittal from a case on the ground of benefit of doubt, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the damages from the defendant/complainant. The same view has been taken by this Court in the case reported as Muhammad Lateef Khan and 2 others vs. Muhammad Afsar Khan (PLD 2000 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 31). At page 34 of the report, in para 5 it was observed as under: "5. We have given due consideration to the matter. The moot point in the case is that whether there is any evidence in support of the allegation that the prosecution of the appellants was without any reasonable ground. It may be stated that the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any such evidence; that, as the appellant were acquitted by the Tehsil Criminal Court they were entitled to the compensation. It may be stated that as is evident even from the case reported as Jogendra Grabdu and others v. Lingeraj Patra and others AIR 1970 Orissa 91, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in a suit for damages that his prosecution was without any reasonable ground. The mere fact that the accused- appellants were acquitted would not justify to award them compensation for malicious prosecution without proving the aforesaid fact. A reference may be made to the cases reported as Khawaja Muhammad Naseem v. Shafiqur Rehman 1996 CLC 1460 and Muhammad Akram v. Mst.
9. Farman Bi PLD 1990 SC 28 in support of the view that it is also necessary for the plaintiffs to prove that the defendant prosecuted him without a reasonable or probable cause."
10. In the present case, we have also noticed that the plaintiff has claimed lumsum amount of damages without giving its detail. The evidence produced in support of claim is also defective.
11. Though, some detail has been given by the plaintiff in his Court statement but unless the same is mentioned in the plaint and the other side has a chance to rebut the same, such evidence cannot be considered at all. Even otherwise, if the details listed in the Court statement of the plaintiff are accepted even then those are required to be proved through cogent evidence, which was missing in the case. We are of the considered view that the learned trial Court as well as the High Court has erroneously awarded the decree for damages to the plaintiff on the basis of insufficient evidence.
12. The suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, herein, was liable to be dismissed for want of proof. The appeal is, therefore, accepted and the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sehnsa dated' 14.9.2013 and that of the High Court dated 27.5.2016 is vacated. The suit for recovery of damages filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is hereby dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.