Ashrani Aizzuddin Bin Abd Rahni v Nurul Shahida Binti Sahidan (BC-A53-20-09/2024)

Sessions Court of Malaysia7 Mar 2025

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Text not available yet

We have this decision's details, but the judgment text is not available yet.

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: Sessions Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 7 Mar 2025
Case number: BC-A53-20-09/2024
Coram: Datin Fadzlin Suraya bt. Dato' Mohd Suah
Practice area: [15] Justeru itu, berdasarkan peruntukan undang-undang dan kes tersebut, adalah menjadi dapatan Mahkamah ini bahawa segala siasatan dan pendakwaan yang telah dibuat terhadap plaintif di dalam keseluruhan prosiding jenayah yang dihadapinya adalah urutan daripada serta hasil budi bicara dan perlaksanaan siasatan bebas dari pihak polis dan Pendakwa Raya yang tidak boleh dicabar di Mahkamah. [16] Sepertimana yang telah diputuskan juga dalam kes Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim v. Norina bt Zainol Abidin & Ors [2017] 7 MLJ 772, Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Vazeer Alam telah menjelaskan bahawa tuntutan pendakwaan berniat jahat tidak boleh digunakan untuk menilai semula keputusan pihak pendakwa atau mempersoalkan kuasa budi bicara yang dijalankan dengan wajar oleh pihak berkuasa. Membenarkan tuntutan sedemikian akan membuka ruang kepada setiap individu yang dibebaskan untuk menyaman pihak lain atas sebab laporan polis, walaupun laporan tersebut dibuat dengan niat baik. [17] Kes Mohamad Izaham ini mempunyai fakta kes yang hampir sama dengan kes di hadapan Mahkamah sekarang. Ia berkenaan bekas pasangan suami-isteri yang bercerai dan bekas suami telah menghadapi pendakwaan lalu memfailkan tuntutan terhadap bekas isteri. Penghakiman Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Vazeer Alam di dalam kes Mohamad Izaham adalah seperti berikut: “[28] Therefore, in cases of malicious prosecution against the prosecutor, a plaintiff would have to prove both the absence of reasonable and probable cause in commencing the prosecution and malice in the form of deliberate and improper use of office. It must be gainsaid that such cases would not be dealing with second guessing a prosecutor’s judgment or conduct of the trial but rather with the deliberate and malicious use of his office for ends that are improper and inconsistent with the statutory prosecutorial function. [29] This court has in Rosli bin Dahlan v Tan Sri Abdul Gani bin Patail & Ors [2014] 11 MLJ 481, held that the public prosecutor and his deputies may be sued for malicious prosecution, where the prosecution had been brought without reasonable and probable cause and where the prosecution was actuated by malice in that the prosecutorial power was deliberately used for ends that are improper and inconsistent with the statutory or constitutional prosecutorial function. However, as against this right afforded to an individual, is the principle that the civil tort of malicious prosecution is not an after-the-fact judicial review of the public prosecutor’s exercise of professional discretion, not is it an exercise to find fault in the manner in which the prosecution was conducted… [30] To allow any and every acquitted person to institute civil proceedings against the prosecutor or the investigating authority, on grounds of the prosecution having failed to prove its case against the accused would be contrary to public interest and policy. Therefore, the mechanisms available within the system of civil procedure, including summarily striking out meritless claims under O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012, must be judiciously used to weed out unmeritorious claims and ensure that the public prosecutor and his deputies will not be hindered in the proper execution of their important constitutional and public duties to uphold the rule of law by enforcing criminal law, as well as maintaining law and order for the greater good of society.” (Penekanan diberikan)
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 22 May 2025
Source ID: d1907759-f680-4f32-b3ce-2695510d4d5d

Catchwords

[15] Justeru itu, berdasarkan peruntukan undang-undang dan kes tersebut, adalah menjadi dapatan Mahkamah ini bahawa segala siasatan dan pendakwaan yang telah dibuat terhadap plaintif di dalam keseluruhan prosiding jenayah yang dihadapinya adalah urutan daripada serta hasil budi bicara dan perlaksanaan siasatan bebas dari pihak polis dan Pendakwa Raya yang tidak boleh dicabar di Mahkamah. [16] Sepertimana yang telah diputuskan juga dalam kes Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim v. Norina bt Zainol Abidin & Ors [2017] 7 MLJ 772, Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Vazeer Alam telah menjelaskan bahawa tuntutan pendakwaan berniat jahat tidak boleh digunakan untuk menilai semula keputusan pihak pendakwa atau mempersoalkan kuasa budi bicara yang dijalankan dengan wajar oleh pihak berkuasa. Membenarkan tuntutan sedemikian akan membuka ruang kepada setiap individu yang dibebaskan untuk menyaman pihak lain atas sebab laporan polis, walaupun laporan tersebut dibuat dengan niat baik. [17] Kes Mohamad Izaham ini mempunyai fakta kes yang hampir sama dengan kes di hadapan Mahkamah sekarang. Ia berkenaan bekas pasangan suami-isteri yang bercerai dan bekas suami telah menghadapi pendakwaan lalu memfailkan tuntutan terhadap bekas isteri. Penghakiman Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Vazeer Alam di dalam kes Mohamad Izaham adalah seperti berikut: “[28] Therefore, in cases of malicious prosecution against the prosecutor, a plaintiff would have to prove both the absence of reasonable and probable cause in commencing the prosecution and malice in the form of deliberate and improper use of office. It must be gainsaid that such cases would not be dealing with second guessing a prosecutor’s judgment or conduct of the trial but rather with the deliberate and malicious use of his office for ends that are improper and inconsistent with the statutory prosecutorial function. [29] This court has in Rosli bin Dahlan v Tan Sri Abdul Gani bin Patail & Ors [2014] 11 MLJ 481, held that the public prosecutor and his deputies may be sued for malicious prosecution, where the prosecution had been brought without reasonable and probable cause and where the prosecution was actuated by malice in that the prosecutorial power was deliberately used for ends that are improper and inconsistent with the statutory or constitutional prosecutorial function. However, as against this right afforded to an individual, is the principle that the civil tort of malicious prosecution is not an after-the-fact judicial review of the public prosecutor’s exercise of professional discretion, not is it an exercise to find fault in the manner in which the prosecution was conducted… [30] To allow any and every acquitted person to institute civil proceedings against the prosecutor or the investigating authority, on grounds of the prosecution having failed to prove its case against the accused would be contrary to public interest and policy. Therefore, the mechanisms available within the system of civil procedure, including summarily striking out meritless claims under O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012, must be judiciously used to weed out unmeritorious claims and ensure that the public prosecutor and his deputies will not be hindered in the proper execution of their important constitutional and public duties to uphold the rule of law by enforcing criminal law, as well as maintaining law and order for the greater good of society.” (Penekanan diberikan)

Parties

ASHRANI AIZZUDDIN BIN ABD RAHNI - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
NURUL SHAHIDA BINTI SAHIDAN - defendant - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords