' This is a revision application under section 115, C.P.C.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the above revision, are that the applicant was married with respondent No,1 (Mst Ahmedi Begum daughter of S.MA. Bukhari, respondent No,2) on 6th June, 1975.
Respondent No,1, as alleged, stayed with the applicant for a short period of about two months, whereafter, she went to the house of her parents and did not return to the applicant. As stated in the memo of revision respondent No,1 obtained divorce through Court, which decree was also confirmed in 1978.
3. On 21-11-1975 respondent No,1 in collusion with respondent No, 2 as alleged, filed a criminal complaint against the applicant in the Court of XIth Additional City Magistrate, Karachi under sections 4 and 5 of the Pakistan Dowry (Prohibition on Display) Act, 1967 (Act XVI of 1967) read with section 403, P.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said complaint and a case was registered against the applicant under sections 4 and 5 of the said Dowry Act. It appears that another case was filed by the applicant's father against the respondents under section 379, P.P.C., alleging that the respondents had committed theft of ornaments and clothes. Both the cases were proceeding before the same learned Magistrate.
4. On 13-12-1978 the respondents filed an application for withdrawal of the complaint. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said complaint as withdrawn and the applicant was acquitted. The other case filed by the applicant's father appears to have also been dismissed on the same day by the learned Magistrate.
5. The applicant on 17-12-1979 filed a suit for damages, praying for the following reliefs:-- "(a) Rs,23,500 as general damages indicated above.
(b) Rs,1,400 as special damages indicated above.
(c) Cost of the suit and interest at 12% p.a. From date of suit to that of payment of above ornaments claimed."
' The said suit was dismissed by the learned IInd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi by his judgment and decree on 10-2-1986. The appeal filed by the applicant before the IVth Addl. District Judge, South, Karachi was also dismissed by his judgment dated 21-3-1990 against which the applicant has filed the above revision.
6. Mr. Syed Sarwar Ali, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment of the learned trial Court suffers from an illegality inasmuch as it is violative of the provision of Order 20, Rule 4(2), C.P.C., as the learned trial Court has failed to decide all the issues. This point was also agitated before the learned Additional District Judge, who seems to have disagreed with the submission of the learned counsel.
7. The trial Court had framed a number of issues which for the sake of convenience are reproduced as under:--
(1) "Whether the plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff suffered damages as alleged ?
(3) What extent each defendant is liable ?
(4) What should be the decree ?"
' The learned Judge discussed in detail issue No,1, which seems to be the basic issue and gave his finding in the negative, holding that in my opinion the plaintiff has failed to prove that the complaint filed by defendant No,1 against the plaintiff was with the intention of malicious prosecution." In view of the clear finding on issue No,1 there was no need for recording separate findings on the remaining issues, and, therefore, no exception can be taken on this ground.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Courts below have misread the evidence and the finding on issue No,1 is wrong, and has been given in disregard of the evidence. Reliance is placed by the counsel on Abdul Razzak v. Abdul Rauf and others PLD 1986 Kar. 476 which refers to a case reported in PLD 1970 Karachi 344, wherein "it was observed that in an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff is under the onus to show that:--
(a) he was prosecuted by the defendant on criminal charge;
(b) the prosecution terminated in plaintiff's favour;
(c) the prosecution was malicious; and
(d) the prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause." The point of malicious prosecution requires examination in some detail: In Babu Sumat Prasad v. Ram Sarup Sastry, AIR 1946 All. 204, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court observed:-- "Malice means the presence of some improper and wrongful motive that is to say, some motive other than desire to bring to justice a person whom the prosecutor honestly believes to be guilty."
' In Black's Law Dictionary, malicious prosecution is stated to be: "A judicial proceeding instituted against a person out of the prosecutor's malice and ill-will, with the intention of injuring him, without probable cause to sustain it, the process and proceedings being regular and formal, but not justified by the facts. For this injury an action on the case lies, called action of malicious prosecution."
' As stated in Mehrotra's Law of Defamation and Malicious Prosecution, 3rd Edition p.323:-- "Malicious prosecution is a tort, the liability of which consists in improperly instituting unsuccessful criminal proceedings for an improper . Purpose and without reasonable and probable cause. An action for damages can be maintained for the abuse of such legal process."
A malicious prosecution may thus be briefly defined as one that is begun in malice, without probable cause to believe it can succeed, and that finally ends in failure.
' The law of malicious prosecution seems to be settled as stated in Clerk and Lindsell on Torts 9th Ed., at page 662: "It is obviously a grievance that an individual should be harassed by legal proceedings improperly instituted against him. If there is no foundation for them no doubt they will not ultimately succeed but during their progress they may cause great injury. It is the right of everyone to put the law in motion if he does so with the honest intention of protecting his own or the public interest, or if the circumstances are such, be his motives what they may, as to render it probable prima facie that the law is on his side. But it is an abuse of that right to proceed maliciously, and without reasonable and probable cause for anticipating success. Such an abuse may of necessity be injurious, as involving damage to character, or it may in any particular case bring about damage to person or property."
9. Applying the above principle to the instant case it is noticed that the application for withdrawal of the complaint Ex.30, which has been referred to by the learned trial Court in his judgment, shows that the complaint was withdrawn by respondent as the parties had agreed to pursue their remedy in Civil Court. The complaint was not decided on merits. It cannot, therefore, be concluded by the events that have happened in the criminal Court that the complaint was false or malicious.
In fact, the case of the father of the applicant (Syed Sarwar Ali, Advocate) pending in the same Court against respondent No,1 was also dismissed as withdrawn with the consent of both the parties. In result, both the cases were eventually withdrawn.
10. 4s a further event, subsequent to the withdrawal of the said complaint, respondent No,1 filed a suit for recovery of her dowry in this Court, which has been decreed in her favour for Rs,40,000 as also referred to by the learned Additional District Judge, in his aforementioned judgment.
11. It is also noticeable that the suit for damages filed by the applicant was itself not maintainable as it was barred by limitation. Admittedly this complaint was dismissed as withdrawn and the appellant was acquitted on 13-12-1978. The suit was filed on 17-12-1979, beyond one year's period as prescribed by Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
12. The revision application has no merits and is dismissed in limine. CMA No,484/90 is also dismissed as in fructuous.
13. Before parting with the case, I would like to observe that the suit filed by the applicant furnishes an example of the misuse of the concession granted by the law that no court-fees will be payable on suit involving amount not exceeding Rs,25,000.