HAQ NAWAZ vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The core legal question examined by the court is whether proceedings initiated under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, being preventive and curative in nature, can constitute a prosecution sufficient to sustain a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. Granting leave to appeal, the court held that such preventive proceedings do not amount to prosecution, rendering the damages suit misconceived. The key principle laid down is that initiation of preventive or curative proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not provide a valid legal basis for a claim of malicious prosecution.
- Do proceedings initiated under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to prosecution for the purpose of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
- Is a suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution maintainable when based upon preventive or curative proceedings?
- Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Contends, inter alia, that the proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C. Are preventive/curative in nature and as such the proceedings under section 133 initiated by the petitioner against the respondent did not amount to prosecution much less malicious prosecution.
2. That being so, the suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner claiming damages for malicious prosecution was misconceived. Leave to appeal is granted to the petitioner to examine this contention.
3. ' Execution of the impugned decree is stayed pending the hearing of the appeal which may be fixed at an early date as only a short point involved in the appeal.