) Malicious prosecution -

(a) Malicious prosecution ---
----Malicious prosecution was a tort which provided redress to those who had been prosecuted "without reasonable cause" and with "malice".

(b) Malicious prosecution ---
----Necessary ingredients---Plaintiff must prove that there was a prosecution without reasonable and probable cause, initiated by malice and the case was resolved in plaintiff's favour---Plaintiff also necessarily had to prove that damage was suffered as a result of the prosecution.
Marine Management v. Government PLD 2000 Kar. 215 ref.

(c) Malicious prosecution ---
----Necessary ingredients---Prosecution without 'reasonable and probable cause' --- Meaning.

Walayat Khan v. Abdul Usman 1990 CLC 37 and Ghulam Nabi Khan v. Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir 1984 CLC 325 ref.

(d) Malicious prosecution ---
----Inference of malice---False accusation through lodging of FIR---Name of accused not mentioned in the original FIR---Accused's name subsequently added to the FIR on basis of information received by complainant from a third person, who was not summoned and produced as a witness in court---Element of malice on part of complainant could be inferred in such circumstances---Suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution was rightly decreed.

Malice on the part of the defendant-complainant in the present case was floating on the surface of the record. There was no occasion or reasonable basis for nominating the plaintiff as an accused in the FIR. In the original FIR, the plaintiff-accused was not named but it was at a subsequent point in time that the defendant-complainant mentioned the name of the plaintiff as an accused on the basis of information given to defendant-complainant by a third person. Such information appeared to be a fabrication because the said person who could have appeared in court to testify in such regard was neither summoned nor produced by the defendant-complainant. No explanation for such material omission had been given by the defendant-complainant. Element of malice on part of defendant-complainant could be inferred in such circumstances. Suit filed by plaintiff-accused for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution was rightly decreed.

(e) Malicious prosecution ---

----Lodging of false FIR---Practice of implicating all able-bodied male family members of accused person---Societal propensity towards false accusation in FIRs could potentially be curbed through civil suits for malicious prosecution.

Mere lodging of an FIR created a public perception adverse to the reputation of the accused. Where the FIR was proved either to be false or to have been lodged without reasonable and probable cause, the circumstances of any given case may be sufficient to show that the lodging of the criminal case was malicious.

In numerous criminal cases which were initiated through filing of FIRs a wide net was cast to implicate accused persons and their family members particularly able-bodied males. This ordinarily was done to ensure that such able-bodied males were arrested and there was none left free to pursue their case in Court. After trial in many cases the accused who were nominated were acquitted. The accuser/complainant in most cases walked away without facing the consequences of a false accusation. Section 182, P.P.C. quite often was not used even if there was reasonable ground for initiating action under the said provision for prosecuting a person who has filed a false FIR. The societal propensity towards false accusation in FIRs can potentially be curbed through civil suits for malicious prosecution.

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 478
Present: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF---Petitioner
Versus
ABDUL QAYYUM---Respondent

Muhammad Imran Qureshi

7 December at 14:23 ·

2016 C L C 1922

[Sindh]

Before Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Anwar Hussain, JJ

Messrs PAKISTAN HOCKEY FEDERATION through Secretary General and another----Appellants

Versus

Mirza IMTIAZ BAIG----Respondent

High Court Appeal No.313 of 2014, decided on 17th May, 2016.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. VI, Rr.14 & 15---Pleadings, non-signing of---Ex parte proceedings---Defendants failed to sign written statement and verification thereunder, therefore, Single Judge of High Court directed to proceed ex-parte against defendants---Plea raised by defendants was that it was merely an irregularity which was curable---Validity---Omission to or mistake to sign pleadings (plaint or written statement) was merely an irregularity and could be cured/rectified subsequently at any stage---Division Bench of High Court directed defendants to sign and verify written statement already on record and set aside the order passed by Single Judge---Intra-court appeal was allowed in circumstances.
1987 SCMR 1365; 1992 SCMR 1009; 1989 CLC 1883;1996 CLC 1064; 1993 MLD 321; 1981 SCMR 687; PLD 1983 Kar. 99; PLD 1990 SC (AJ&K) 13; PLD 1980 Kar. 477; PLD 1962 (W.P) (Lah.) 830; Muhammad Anwar Khan and others v. Choudhry Riaz Ahmed and others PLD 2002 SC 491; Muhammad Khaliq v. Abdullah Khan 1987 CLC 1366; Ajaib Khan v. Allah Ditta, 2002 YLR 2723; M/s. Aziz Floor Mills v. I.D.B.P. 1990 CLC 1473; Muhammad Sarwar alias Feroz Ali v. Abdul Ghani 1980 CLC 946; Rajabali v. Gujrat Bus Service PLD 1961 (W.P.) Kar. 486; Toor Gul v. Mumtaz Begum PLD 1972 SC 9; Suneri Bank Limited v. Classic Denim Mills (Pvt.) Limited 2011 CLD 408; Managing Director S.S.G.C. v. Ghulam Abbas PLD 2003 SC 724 and PLD 2013 SC 829 ref.
(b) Administration of justice---

----Technicalities---Scope---Technicalities are to be brushed aside for the administration of justice---Law favours decision of case on merits rather on technical knock outs.
Ayaz Ahmed Ansari for Appellants

7 December at 14:23 ·

2016 C L C 1936

[Balochistan (Sibi Bench)]

Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, JJ

HAZOOR BAKHSH and 2 others----Appellants

Versus

Mir NASRULLAH KHAN----Respondent

Regular First Appeal No.2 of 2010, decided on 25th May, 2015.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----S, 9 & O.II, R.2---Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002), Preamble--- Malicious prosecution--- Defamation--- Ingredients and proof---Scope---Publication of news item---Mental agony---Damages---Jurisdiction of Civil Court---Scope---Defamation Ordinance, 2002 did not contain any ouster clause or any overriding effect qua jurisdiction of civil court---Prior to promulgation of Defamation Ordinance, 2002 the tort of defamation was actionable before civil court of ordinary jurisdiction---Civil courts being courts of ultimate jurisdiction could try suits with regard to civil disputes unless their jurisdiction was expressly or impliedly barred---Suit for defamation was maintainable before the civil court of ordinary jurisdiction---Plaintiffs had not pressed their claim or remedy under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 rather opted to file suit under S.9, C.P.C---Litigants could choose either of two statutory remedies i.e. as provided under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 or the court of civil jurisdiction under S.9, C.P.C.---Hearsay evidence was not admissible under the law---Giving of any information with regard to commission of crime did not constitute defamation rather it was duty of every citizen to inform law enforcing agencies about commission of any crime---Originator, publisher or printer of material in question could be sued for damages but plaintiffs had not made any claim against them which would constitute relinquishment of claim---Plaintiffs had failed to prove that alleged application for registration of criminal case was filed by the defendant---Mere filing of application would not amount to malicious prosecution---Person claiming to have been injured must establish that his reputation had been diminished or his general reputation in the estimation of general public was tend to reduce him to ridicule due to unjust criticism and unnecessary hatred had been created against him; that his reputation suffered due to circulation of said news---Nothing was on record to substantiate the claim of defamation---Question of mental agony was required to be established through cogent and reliable evidence---Mere feeling of resentment in one's mind was not sufficient to establish mental agony---If a person claimed mental torture/agony or damage/injury to his reputation, initial burden would lie upon him to lead evidence on such point---Suit was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
M. Musa v. Muhammad and others PLD 1968 SC 25 and Ch. Zulfiqar Cheema v. Farhan Arshad Mir PLD 2015 SC 134 rel.
(b) Malicious prosecution---

----Ingredients---Ingredients to establish malicious prosecution were; that plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant; that prosecution ended in favour of plaintiff; that defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause; that defendant was actuated by malice and that the proceedings had interfered with plaintiff's liberty and had also affected his reputation and plaintiff had suffered damages.
Niaz and others v. The State PLD 2006 SC 432 rel.
Ahsan Rafiq Rana for Appellants.
Nadir Ali Chalgari and Khurshid

Muhammad Imran Qureshi

23 November at 12:11 ·

2005 S C M R 515
Recovery of the blood stained dagger and blood stained clothes after a period of about more than one month from inside the earth had diminished the possibility of presence of blood on them
2010 Y L R 431
[Lahore]
Before Hasnat Ahmad Khan, J
NAEEM MASIH---Appellant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
---"Chutri" recovered from the accused after 23 days of the occurrence could not retain blood-stains.
1998 P Cr. L J 1077
[Lahore]
Before Sajjad Ahmed Sipra, J
ZULFIQAR AHMAD and others---Appellants
Versus
THE STATE.--Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.221 of 1993, decided tin 27th March, 1998.
(a) Panel Code (XLV of 1860)----
----S. 302/34---Recovery of blood-stained weapon----Utility----weapon of offence cannot retain blood stains on it for nearly two months.---[Recovery].
2013 Y L R 2777
[Lahore]
Before Manzoor Ahmad Malik and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ
MUHAMMAD ASIF---Appellant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S.302---Qatl-e-amd---Delayed recovery of weapon of offence---Effect---Occurrence took place on 18-3-2007, whereas recovery of dagger was effected at the instance of accused on 25-4-2007 and the same was received in the office of Chemical Examiner on 23-6-2007, i.e. after about more than two months of occurrence---Remote possibility of presence of blood on dagger after the lapse of more than two months and it was not safe to rely on such piece of evidence---Recovery was not relied upon in circumstances.
1985 M L D 1039
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
FAZAL HUSSAIN- -Appellant
versus
THE STATE--Respondent
Knife recovered from house of accused after three days of occurrence but presence of blood on knife after three days creating doubt as to recovery of blood-stained knife from accused

23 November at 12:20 ·

2016 SCMR 662
Registration Act.Ss.17 &49
Oral gift, authenticity of ....Unregistered gift deed executed between the donor and donee as an acknowledgement of past transection of oral gift..non-registration of such gift deed would not have much bearing as regard its authenticity or validity , however three important prerequisites for valid gift I.e "offer" ,""acceptance ",and " delivery of possession " ,had to be proved for such transaction to be valid

PLD 2015 Isl 85 (c)
Press clipping could be considered and looked into as corroborated material in the presence of some other direct impeachable and confidence inspiring evidence but their own strength, press clipping were not enough to prove the existence of certain fact.

Registration of FIR---Irregular marriage-- Citation Name : 2016 CLC 717 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHER
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/JUSTICE OF PEACE, DISTRICT KHUSHAB
Ss. 22-A & 22-b ---Registration of FIR---Irregular marriage---Petitioner alleged that his daughter was abducted by respondents who also took away gold ornaments and cash amount with them from his house---Ex-officio Justice of Peace declined to interfere in the matter as daughter of the petitioner was a sui juris and had contracted second marriage after elapse of period of Iddat---Validity---Marriage entered into by a divorced lady before completion of Iddat period could be an irregular marriage and not void marriage---Marriage which was irregular could not be treated as void marriage---Union of husband and wife in irregular marriage could not be regarded as un-Islamic or against Sharia---Daughter of petitioner was divorced by her previous husband and if she had produced divorce deed, the same would be valid when the previous husband had not come forward to deny or dispute validity of 'Talaqnama'---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Petition was dismissed in circumstance

2016 CLC 1460 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. RABIA BIBI
Side Opponent : ABDUL QADIR
S. 25---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---custody of minor ---Welfare of minor ---Determination---second marriage of mother---Effect---Scope---Courts below handed over custody of minor to father---Validity---Courts below took into consideration the second marriage of mother and age of minor ---While deciding custody of minor , welfare of minor , and nothing else, was the paramount consideration---Courts below were not justified in disturbing the custody of minor ---Father admitted that suit for recovery of maintenance allowance of the minor had been decreed against him---Real mother could not be deprived of her son due to her second marriage ---Father filed application for custody of minor subsequent to passing of decree of maintenance allowance against him---Father was least interested in welfare of minor , rather, he filed the application for custody of minor in order to frustrate the decree of maintenance allowance passed against him---minor was growing up properly and getting proper education in a private school---minor was living with his mother since birth and had developed love and affection for her---Disturbance in custody at this stage would psychologically tell upon his personality in future---No substitute to real mother---Lap of mother was cradle of God---Remarriage of the mother, ipso facto, would not disentitle her from retaining the custody of minor ---Poverty of mother was no ground to disentitle her from the custody of the minor ---Islamic law was subservient to the welfare of the minor ---Petition was allowed---Application of father for custody of minor was dismissed