SHAKEEL AHMAD, J. Through this single judgment, I intend to decide R.F.A. No 94-D/2018, R.F.A. No.95/2018-D, R.F.A. No. 96/2018-D, R.F.A. No. 97/2018-D, R.F.A. No. 98/ 2018-D, R. F. A. No. 99/2018-D, 100/2018-D and R.F.A. No.101-D/2018, as common question of law and facts in all these regular appeals are involved.
2. Brief and relevant facts leading to instant appeals are that the appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.18,00,000/- against the respondents for causing him mental torture, body pain, agony and damage to his reputation on account of his lodging of crime No.44 dated 18.4.2014, registered under sections 435, 427, 506, 148, 149, P.P.C. at Police Station Chaudhwan, by leveling frivolous and baseless allegations, as a result of which his house was raided by the police. Consequently , they took pre-a rrest bail and remained under the threat of arrest in case of withdrawal of pre-arrest bail by the Court. During investigation, the report of the complainant respondent was found to be false and the appellants were discharged after long investigation, as such they sustained mental agony due to their false implication in the case, which necessitated to file the suit for damages. After service of summons, the respondent put his appearance and submitted an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition vide order dated 21.11.2017. Not contented with the same, the respondent filed revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge-III, D.I.Khan, which was allowed and the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, vide judgment dated 28.4.2018, hence these appeals.
3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that impugned judgment is against the law and facts available on record. He next contended that the learned revisional Court failed to appreciate the allegations set- forth in the plaint and failed to appreciate the agony of the appellants which they suffered by attending the investigation before the investigating agency . He further contended that it is a proven fact on the record that the respondent with mala fide intention nomin ated the appellants in the crime report to cause damage to the reputation of the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants added that all the appellants thus, suffered acute mental torture, agony , body paid and huge losses. He lastly contented that, on the face of it, the plaint does disclose the cause of action and the learned revisional Court while rejecting the plaint overlooked the averments of the plaint which resulted in gross miscarriage of justice, therefore, warrants interference.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned judgment and decree of the revisional Court by arguing that the plaint prima facie does not disclose a cause of action. He next argued that no case is made out for malicious prosecution, therefore, the plaint was rightly rejected under Order VII, Rule 1 1, C.P .C.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record with their eminent assistance.
6. The case of the appellants is that they are notables of the locality and belong to respectable business community and enjoy immaculate reputation in the locality for their fair and candid dealings with the people; that the respondent with mala fide intention falsely involved the appellants in Crime No.44 dated 18.4.2014, registered under sections 435, 427, 506, 148, 149, P.P.C. at Police Station Chaudhwan. During investigation the house of the appellants were raided and in order to save themselves from humiliation and police torture, they procured pre- arrest bail and remained under threat of arrest in case of withdrawal of concession of ad-interim bail by the Court.
Ultimately , after a long investigation, the appellants were discharged under section 169, Cr.P.C. and a complaint under section 182, Cr.P.C. was filed against the respondent-complainant by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, D.I.Khan, vide order dated 22.5.2014, and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, D.I.Khan, vide order dated 08.4.2015. In fact, the appellants' grievance started when the respondent nominated them as accus ed in the FIR and ultimately they were discharged. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the charge of the accused by the Magistrate is not equated with the acquittal of the accused, hence suit for damages on malicious prosecution is not maintainable. Admittedly , in the present case, the appellants were discha rged after a long investigation, after registration of the case and all the appellants procured pre-arrest bail from the Court and they remained under constant threat in case of recalling of their pre-arrest bail by the Court. In a case report as Pandit Gaya Parshad Tewari v. Sardar Bhagat Singh and another (Privy Council, 1908 (35) L.R.-I.A. 189), it was held as under:- "In India the police have special powers in regard to the investigation of criminal charges, and it depends very much on the result of their investigation whether or not further proceedings are taken against the person accused.
If, therefore, a complainant does not do beyond giving what he believes to be corre ct information to the police, and the police, without further interference on his part (except giving such honest assistance as they may require), think fit to prosecute, it would be improper to make him responsible in damages for the failure of the prosecution. But if the charge is false to the knowledge of the complaint if he misleads the police by brining suborned witnesses to support it, if he influences the police to assist him in sending an innocent man for trial before the magistrate, it would be equally improper to allow him escape liability because the prosecution has not, technically , been conducted by him."
The Privy Council again in AIR. 1947 PC 108, examined the issue of proceeding s of malicious prosecution and held as under:-- "The action for damages for malicious prosecution is part of the common law of England, administered by the High Court at Calcutta under its letter patent. The foundation of action lies in abuse of the process of the Court by wrongfully setting the law in motion and it is designed to discourse the perversion of the machinery of justice for an improper purpose. The plaintif f must prove that the proceedings instituted against him were malicious, without reasonable and probable cause, that they terminated in his favour (if that be possible), and that he has suffered damage. As long ago as 1698 it was held by Holt C. J. In 1 Ld. Raym. 374 that damages might be claimed in such an action under three heads, (1) damage to the person (2) damage to property , and (3) damage to reputation, and that rule has prevailed ever since. That the word "prosecution" in the title of the action is not used in the technical sense which it bears in criminal law is shown by the fact, that the action lies for the malicious prosecution of certain classes of civil proceedings, for instance falsely and maliciously presenting a petition in bankruptcy or a petition to wind up a company: (1883) 11 Q.B.D 674. The reason why the action does not lies for falsely and maliciously prosecuting an ordinary civil action is, as explained by Bowen L. J. in the last mentioned case, that such a case does not necessarily and naturally involve damage to the party sued. A civil action which is false will be dismissed at the hearing. The defendant's reputatio n will be cleared of any imputations made against him, and he will be indemnified against his expenses by the award of 'costs against his opponent. The law does not award damages for mental anxiety , or for extra costs incurred beyond those imposed on the successful party . But a criminal charge involving scandal to reputation or the possible loss of lie or liberty to the party charged does necessarily and naturally involved damage and in such a case damage to reputation will be presumed".
In the case reported as Abdul Majeed Khan v. Tawseen Abdul Haleem and others (2012 CLD 6), the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:- "20. Where the claimant has been subjected to a criminal prosecution, as a consequence of which he loses or risks of losing his liberty and/or his reputation, a remedy in the tort of maliciously prosecution will lie. The institution of a civil action should exceptionally , results in liability under tort, when the claimant loses the suit, the defendant's reputation is restored and he recovers his cost spent on defending the action. However , for malicious proceedings in the bankruptcy and winding up, which may wreck the claimant's business, destroy confidence in his competence and integrity and in his company's goodwill, a remedy in the Tort will lie.
21. It is well-known that a person who is maliciously prosecuted on a criminal charge can sue in tort for damages if the prosecution ends in his acquittal and the prosecution was maliciously in the sense that it was without any reasonable cause. To ground a claim for malicious prosecution a plaintif f must prove (1) that the law was set in motion against him on a criminal charge; (2) that the prosecution was determined in his favour; (3) that it was without reasonable and proper cause; and (4) that it was malicious."
In this behalf, reference can also be made to the case reported as Niaz and others v. Abdul Sattar and other s (PLD 2006 SC 432 ), 'wherein it was held as under:- "9. By Article 4 of the Constitution, it is the inalienable right of every citizen to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law and in particular no action detrimental to the life, land, liberty , body , reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law. Article 14 of the Constitution also guarantees the dignity of man and subject to law, the privacy of home. In the context of the Constitution, it is no more necessary to hedge in an action for damages for malicious prosecution by the condition that the action was an abuse of the "process of the Court". It will in our opinion be more in consonance with the genesis of the Constitution, Articles 4 and 14 in particular , to say that the foundation of the action for damages for malicious prosecution lies, not in the abuse of the process of Court, but in the abuse in the process of law. For, if we bear in mind the ground realities of life existing in our country , it should appear plainly that proceedings before the police afford a stronger ground for an action for malicious prosecution than proceedings in a Court of law, for it is an unfortunate fact that, as things are, human dignity suffers or is likely to suffer more at the hands of the police than in a Court of law. One of the modes to achieve this goal is to file a suit for damages against the offenders by the aggrieved persons. It is the duty of the members of the Bar Association and Bar Council to educate the people and to file suits for damages against the of fenders apart from the criminal proceedings."
7. It is now settled that for the purpose of rejection of plaint, only the averments of the plaint and documents appended with the plaint are to be looked into and nothing else. In this context, reference may be made to the cases reported as Haji Allah Bakhsh v. Abdul Rehman and others (1995 SCMR 459) and Muhammad Saleem Ullah and others v. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and others (PLD 2005 SC 511). Recital of the contents of the plaint, on the face of it, does disclose a cause of action and it is immaterial that the appellants Would be able to prove it or not and at preliminary stage it is not permissible to reject the plaint without affording the appellants an opportunity to prove their case.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this and the connected appeals are allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees of he learned revisional Court are set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court with the direction to decide the suit after recording pro and contra evidence. Needless to say that the plaint shall be deemed to be pending before the learned trial Court.