IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)  
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB  
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100 OF 2017 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 19.01.2017 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal 
Revision No. 71/2017) 
 
Ayesha Bibi 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
ADJ Lahore and others 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner:  
In person  
 
For the Respondent (2): In person 
 
For the State: 
 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Addl. P.G.  
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
15.02.2018 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- When the petitioner could not get an 
FIR registered against the respondent No. 2 for violating her 
modesty, she filed a petition under Section 22A of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure to seek direction from the Sessions Court to the 
police. Her petition was however dismissed and so was the 
constitution petition filed by her in the High Court. She then 
challenged the order of the High Court before this Court and this 
Court directed her to approach the SHO in the first instance and 
record her statement. Resultantly, the Police registered an FIR 
bearing No. 806/2013 against respondent No. 2 under Section 376 
PPC. At a later stage the petitioner also registered a criminal case 
against respondent No. 2 for assaulting her and taking away her 
Criminal Petition No. 100/2017 
2
gold ornament. In retaliation to the criminal cases registered against 
him, respondent No.2 filed a civil suit against the petitioner for 
damages on the ground that he is being continuously harassed on 
account of criminal cases filed by the petitioner and as a result 
thereof he remains tense and mentally disturbed. The said suit is 
said to be pending.  
 
2. 
 
Respondent No.2 considering that the two criminal 
cases lodged against him by the petitioner have tarnished his 
blameless character in the eyes of his family members, friends and 
colleagues, in addition to filing the civil suit also sought an FIR 
registered against the petitioner under the provision of Section 500 
PPC alleging defamation. The concerned SHO refused to register the 
case on the ground that from the allegation narrated by respondent 
No.2 no cognizable offence is made out. Having failed in getting an 
FIR registered, respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint under 
Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 
500 PPC seeking the petitioner’s conviction for defaming him on 
account of initiation of the two criminal cases. The Sessions Court 
took cognizance of respondent No. 2’s private complaint and issued 
notice to the petitioner. At that stage the petitioner moved an 
application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
on the ground that the private complaint is nothing but a 
counterblast to the pending criminal cases which she had lodged 
against respondent No.2. The court however dismissed her 
application vide order dated 02.12.2016. The petitioner being 
aggrieved by such dismissal, filed criminal revision before the High 
Criminal Petition No. 100/2017 
3
Court which too was dismissed in limine vide impugned order dated 
19.01.2017. Hence, this petition.  
 
3. 
 
Petitioner, who appeared in person, contended that 
from the contents of the private complaint filed under Section 500 
PPC, it is evident that no case warranting criminal action is made 
out against her which has been filed only to blackmail and harass 
her in retaliation to the criminal cases which she had registered 
against respondent No. 2 and the courts below ought to have 
considered this aspect of the matter and accordingly should have 
acquitted her under the provisions of Section 265-K of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure. Respondent No. 2, who also appeared in 
person, in reply contended, that on account of the false imputations 
made in the criminal cases registered against him by the petitioner 
has tarnished his reputation in the eyes of his family, friends and 
his co-workers. 
 
4. 
 
Maintenance of peace in the society is one of the most 
important characteristics of public interest which 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 fear that it will involve them in litigation. Only 
when they feel assured that the administration of justice, which is a 
vital and foremost facet of public interest, requires that a 
complainant or an informant should enjoy immunity for what he 
states orally or in writing to the investigators as a matter of public 
policy so that they are confident in coming forward and giving 
Criminal Petition No. 100/2017 
4
information to the police. No doubt this rule can be abused by a 
revengeful person but for such reason pubic interest cannot be 
compromised.   
 
5. 
 
In a judgment of House of Lords in the case of Taylor Vs 
Director of the Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177 while 
expressing his opinion on immunity, Lord Hope at page 218 states 
as follows:- 
 
‘The public interest requires that those involved in such an 
investigation should be able to communicate freely and without 
being inhibited by the threat of proceedings for defamation. The 
requirement, therefore, should be accorded priority over the 
countervailing consideration that sometimes a malicious 
informant may be able to benefit from such a rule in 
circumstances which would appear to be unfair or unjust.’  
 
6. 
 
In Messr. Bapala & Co. v AR Kristmaswami Aiyer 1941 
AIR (Mad) 26 it was held that a complaint made to a police officer by 
the complainant from its very nature if called upon in court to 
substantiate upon oath is absolutely privileged, this can be reflected 
in the following passage which is reproduced below: 
 
‘Both Judges apply the principle of Watson v. M'Ewan (1905) 
A.C. 480, to a complaint to the police and Ghose, J., points out 
on page 580 that the reason for the privilege is stronger in the 
case of a complaint to the police than in the case of statements 
to a solicitor for the question whether a prosecution shall follow 
upon the complaint is taken out of complainant's hands by his 
own action. 
 
 
5. I am accordingly of opinion that the weight of authority is in 
favour of the view that a complaint to a Police Officer from its 
Criminal Petition No. 100/2017 
5
very nature as a statement which the complainant is prepared 
later, if called upon to do so, to substantiate upon oath is 
absolutely privileged.’ 
 
 
 
7. 
 
In Bira Gareri V. Dulhin Somaria 1962 AIR (Patna) 229 
it was held as under:- 
 
‘….. giving information to the police of a cognizable offence with 
the object of setting the law in motion for the police to 
investigate and institute the case to be taken in the conduct of 
a legal proceedings and statements made in such an 
information must be absolutely privileged.’  
 
8. 
 
The principle is further elaborated in the case of 
Thekkittil Gopalankutty Nair v Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthaseah 
AIR 1971 Ker 280 which discusses when statements would be 
covered by the said immunity. It was held:- 
 
‘…absolute immunity is not confined to statements made 
‘coram judice’ but extends to statements made in the course of 
proceedings so closely related to judicial proceedings as to 
constitute a step in or towards such a proceedings and, 
therefore, proceedings forming part of the administration of 
justice. The privilege attaches not merely to proceedings at the 
trial, but to proceedings which are essentially steps in judicial 
proceedings, 
including 
statements 
in 
pleadings 
and 
communications passing between a solicitor and his client on 
the subject on which the client has retained the solicitor and 
which are relevant to the matter.’ 
 
 
9. 
 
Likewise taking a case from English jurisdiction in 
Westcott V Westcott [2008] EWCA Civ 818 the Court while 
Criminal Petition No. 100/2017 
6
considering the public importance of absolute privilege held as 
under:- 
  
‘..The policy being to enable people to speak freely, without 
inhibition and without fear or being sued, the person in 
question must know at the time he speaks whether or not the 
immunity will attach. Because society expects that criminal 
activity will be reported and when reported investigated and, 
when appropriate, prosecuted, all those who participate in a 
criminal investigation are entitled to the benefit of absolute 
privilege in respect of the statements which they make.…..The 
police cannot investigate a possible crime without the alleged 
criminal activity coming to their notice. Making an oral 
complaint is the first step in that process of investigation. In 
order to have confidence that protection will be afforded, the 
potential complainant must know in advance of making an 
approach to the police that her complaint will be immune from a 
direct or a flank attack.…In my judgment, any inhibition on the 
freedom to complain will seriously erode the rigors of the 
criminal justice system and will be contrary to the public 
interest. In my judgment immunity must be given from the 
earliest moment that the criminal justice system becomes 
involved. Making of both the oral complaint and the subsequent 
written complaint must be absolutely privileged.’ 
 
 
10. 
 
In the case of National Society For The Prevention Of 
Cruelty To Children v D (Married Woman) [1979] 2 All ER 993 the 
rule of immunity was emphasized in the following words:- 
 
‘That the rule can operate to the advantage of the untruthful or 
malicious or revengeful or self-interest or even demented police 
informant as much as one who bring information from a high 
minded sense of civic duty. Experience seems to have shown 
that though the resulting immunity from disclosure can be 
Criminal Petition No. 100/2017 
7
abused the balance of public interest lies in generally respect 
it.’   
 
 
11. 
 
Furthermore in the case of Lincoln V Daniels [1962] 1 
Q.B. 237 at 257, it was held:- 
 
‘The absolute privilege which covers proceedings in or before a 
court of justice can be divided into three categories. The first 
category covers all matters that are done coram judice. This 
extends to everything that is said in the course of proceedings 
by judges, parties, counsel and witnesses, and includes the 
contents of documents put in as evidence. The second covers 
everything that is done from the inception of the proceedings 
onwards and extends to all pleadings and other documents 
brought into existence for the purposes of the proceedings and 
starting with the writ or other document which institutes the 
proceedings. The third category is the most difficult of the three 
to define. It is based on the authority of Watson V. M’ Ewan 
[1905] A.C. 480 in which the House of Lords held that the 
privilege attaching to evidence which a witness gave coram 
judice extended to the precognition or proof of that evidence 
taken by a solicitor. It is immaterial whether the proof is or is 
not taken in the course of proceedings.’ 
 
12. 
 
No doubt Section 499 PPC allows a person to bring a 
separate case against a person who intentionally makes a 
defamatory statement to harm ones reputation. However, where a 
person is sued for defamation on account of giving a statement to 
the police on the basis of which a criminal investigation commences 
or is given during the course of a criminal 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 and thus the claim of defamation has to be 
Criminal Petition No. 100/2017 
8
struck down as being abuse of the process of the court. The rule of 
immunity is attracted irrespective of the fact whether criminal 
action succeeds or not. However, at the end of the trial if the 
acquitted person demonstrates that the criminal action was tainted 
with malice i.e. the law was set in motion maliciously without a 
reasonable cause i.e. whatever the complainant has stated in the 
criminal proceedings was based on fabrication of evidence or a 
statement was attributed to someone which was not said or written 
by him then he can be sued for malicious prosecution, scope of 
which falls within the confines of Section 250 of the Code of the 
Criminal Procedure but nothing more as this section only deals with 
frivolous or vexatious accusations made in the course of 
proceedings and not with an allegation of defamation. Section 250 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure thus can only be invoked when a 
case has been proved to be false on evidence. The case of Taylor v 
Director of the Serious Fraud Office [1999]2 AC 177 establishes the 
principle that a remedy in malicious prosecution is available if a 
person has been found to have maliciously initiated a criminal 
proceeding in the following words:- 
 
‘Public interest requires that a remedy for malicious prosecution 
should remain available against those who would be entitled to 
the benefit of the absolute privilege but who have acted 
maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause during 
the investigation process. But that is a quite separate matter as 
it is the malicious abuse of process, not the making of the 
statement, which provides the cause of action.…. It by no 
means follows that because a malicious complainant can be 
sued for malicious prosecution or prosecuted for perjury such a 
person should also be open, at an earlier stage, to a claim in 
defamation.’  
Criminal Petition No. 100/2017 
9
 
 
13. 
 
Hence Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
cannot be invoked in consideration of the fact that intention to lodge 
the criminal case was to ruin the reputation of the acquitted person. 
What has been discussed above can be summarized thus; the action 
for defamation on account of initiating criminal proceedings is hit by 
the rule of immunity which is devised for proper administration of 
justice whereas the action for malicious prosecution as provided in 
Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not so hit by the 
rule. We therefore convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set 
aside the impugned judgment and acquit the petitioner of the 
charges levelled against her by applying the provisions of Section 
265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
Islamabad, the 
Announced on 15.03.2018 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram