Policing depends on flow of information: SC

Mere intention to lodge case to ruin reputation does not warrant compensation, says judge

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that compensation cannot be granted on basis of the intention to lodge a criminal case to ruin the reputation of an acquitted person.

Justice Faisal Arab authored a nine page order, which has observed that maintenance of peace in society is one of the most important aspects of public interest that requires effective policing.

“Effective policing depends upon flow of information about any crime and its perpetrator. Experience shows that many people though mindful of their civic duties are unwilling to put forward a complaint out of the fear that it will involve them in litigation. No doubt this rule can be abused by a revengeful person but for such reason public interest cannot be compromised”, says the order,

The order further said that where a person is sued for defamation on giving a statement to the police during a criminal investigation or is given during the course of the investigation, the claim for defamation would certainly undermine the rule of immunity, which is devised as a public policy consideration for proper administration of justice. Therefore, the claim of defamation has to be struck down as abusive to the process of court.



The court also said that the rule of immunity is attracted regardless of whether the criminal action succeeds or not. If the acquitted person at the end of the trial demonstrates that the criminal action was tainted with malice, such as the law being set in motion maliciously without a reasonable cause and whatever complainant has stated in the criminal proceedings was based on fabrication of evidence then he can be sued for malicious prosecution, which falls within the Section 250 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure.

According to Code of Criminal Procedure about the compensation for accusation without reasonable cause “Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure thus can only be invoked when a case has been proved to be false on evidence”. However, the section only deals with frivolous or vexatious accusations made in the course of proceedings and not with an allegation of defamation.