AKHTAR IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD ALI BILAL and otherss
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by the petitioner seeking the conviction and punishment of eight respondents who had been concurrently acquitted by the trial Magistrate and the High Court in a case involving allegations of assault, illegal confinement, and abuse arising from prior civil and personal disputes. The core legal question was whether the concurrent acquittal of the respondents was sustainable and whether the petitioner's prosecution was frivolous and vexatious warranting compensation and costs. The Supreme Court held that no grounds existed to interfere with the concurrent acquittal, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal. Furthermore, the Court held that the prosecution and petition were frivolous and vexatious, laying down the principle that a complainant who maliciously pursues groundless litigation against accused persons, including involving their female family members, to satisfy a sense of vengeance is liable to pay statutory compensation under the Code of Criminal Procedure and costs for wasting judicial time.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the lower courts when no valid grounds are shown?
- Can a complainant be ordered to pay compensation under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for instituting a frivolous and vexatious prosecution?
- Whether costs can be imposed on a petitioner for wasting the time of the Supreme Court by filing a frivolous and vexatious petition?
- Section 417(2-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 250, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Order XXVIII Rule 3, Supreme Court Rules
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Akhtar petitioner was in litigation with Muhammad Ali respondent with respect to the allotment of a house. He was also having disputes with some others, namely, Intizar respondent and his family, on account of payment of some electricity bills.
He had alleged through F.I.R. No,190 of Police Station City of District Bhakkar dated 12-8-2000 that on 4-8-2000 he was returning home on a motorcycle at about 10-00 p.m. When the wife of the said Muhammad Ali respondent, namely, Mst. Shakeela respondent; the mother of Intizar respondent, namely Mst. Sarwar; wife of Intizar respondent, namely, Mst. Baby and a maternal-aunt of the said Intizar, namely, Mst. Sughra stopped him along with 3/4 unknown persons and felled him on the ground whereafter the said Muhammad Ali, the said Intizar, the two brothers of the said Intizar, a domestic servant of the said Intizar, namely, Mukhtar and one Zahid Bukhari also joined the initial female aggressors and belaboured him. He further claimed to have been illegally confined as the said accused persons were made him sit on the ground for some time and kept abusing him all this time.
2. The above-mentioned eight accused persons were put to trial and were acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate, inter alia, on the ground that Akhtar petitioner-complainant had never got himself medically examined in proof of his claim of having been beaten up by the said eight accused persons. The petitioner - complainant questioned the said acquittal before the learned High Court by way of an appeal under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which appeal was dismissed through an order, dated 15-9-2004.
3. The petitioner was still not satisfied and approached this Court seeking conviction and punishments for the said eight accused persons.
4. After hearing the learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner on 3=7-2006, we issued notice to Akhtar petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the respondents under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and why he should not be burdened with costs under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules.
5. The petitioner-complainant is present and has been heard, in person and through his learned counsel.
6. We have examined the acquittal of the eight respondents concurrently recorded by the two learned Courts i,e, the learned trial Magistrate and the learned High Court but could not find any reason to interfere with the said acquittal earned by the said respondents. Criminal Petition No,598-L of 2004 is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.
7. As would be noticed from the resume of the prosecution case against the respondents; it is evident that in order to settle his scores with the respondents, the petitioner did not spare even their females. They were acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate but the petitioner's sense of vengeance was still not satisfied and he dragged them into the High Court by filing an appeal against their acquittal. The leaned High Court dismissed the said appeal and petitioner's thirst was still not quenched and he filed this petition seeking, once again, conviction and punishments for the said respondents. Having heard the petitioner, we find that the prosecution launched by him' was frivolous and vexatious. He is consequently directed to pay Rs,25,000 to the respondents as compensation for having so done as envisaged by the provisions of section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. And for the same reason we also, find that the petitioner had wasted the time of this Court by filing this frivolous and vexatious petition. He, is, therefore, also directed to pay costs for the same which are fixed at Rs,25,000. He prays for three months' time to do the needful which prayer is allowed.
8. The whole of above-mentioned amount shall be paid to the respondents on equal shares.
9. For this limited purpose, this matter shall be listed for hearing on 1-11-2006 on which date the petitioner shall bring the said amount of money to the Court for the above-noticed purpose.