A Gulf man accuses a woman of fabricating charges of assaulting her in order to blackmail him

A Gulf man filed a civil lawsuit against an Arab woman, demanding compensation of 80,000 dirhams for the material and moral damage he suffered as a result of her fabricating a charge of assaulting and beating her, and her attempt to blackmail him and her husband when he contacted them to explain the nature of the problem that had occurred.

The first instance criminal court ruled, in absentia, to convict him and fine him 10,000 dirhams. He objected in his presence to the ruling in absentia, but the same court upheld the ruling, so he appealed against him. The Court of Appeal ruled to cancel the initial ruling and acquitted him due to weak evidence, which he called

He resorted to the civil court, which rejected his claim.

The plaintiff said in the details of the case that he is a well-to-do man, married with children, and the defendant claimed that he assaulted her in the parking lot of one of the towers, and she filed a report against him, so the police took the necessary measures and arrested him.

He added that he tried in good faith to communicate by phone with the defendant, and told her that he had nothing to do with the assault.

He also tried to reach an understanding with her husband, but they rejected all his attempts, and asked him for a sum of money so that she would drop the lawsuit, which shows the intention of exploiting legal procedures and the right to litigation to blackmail him.

He added that he was outside the country when a conviction was issued against him in absentia and a fine of 20,000 dirhams on charges of assault and threat.

As a result of the ruling, a general order was issued against him. He was subjected to prosecution and was subjected to a lot of harassment and inconvenience at his work due to a charge he did not commit. He then appealed the ruling before the Court of Appeal, which acquitted him, and the ruling became final.

The plaintiff indicated that the malicious complaint filed by the defendant caused him material and moral damage, and he attached a folder of documents containing their statements before the Public Prosecution in the criminal case.

In turn, the defendant appeared in person before the court and submitted a memorandum requesting that the case be dismissed.

After examining the case by the Civil Court, it stated in the merits of its ruling that what was established in the papers was that, based on the report that the defendant filed with the police, the Public Prosecution charged the plaintiff with committing the charge of violating her body’s safety and threatening her, and a preliminary ruling was issued convicting him, then the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling and ruled for acquittal. .

The civil court explained that the appeal ruling that ruled in acquittal stated in its reasons that the evidence in the papers had been surrounded by suspicious doubt, had become weak, and had been afflicted with weakness and inconsistency, in a way that did not serve as evidence with which the court could be reassured of the validity of the accusation and its proof against the accused.

She continued that she concluded from the text of the appeal ruling that the reason for the plaintiff’s acquittal in the criminal case was the Court of Appeal’s doubt about the validity of the accusation and its attribution to him, but the papers were devoid of anything indicating that the defendant’s complaint procedures against him were malicious and tinged with bad faith or a desire to harm him.

The court concluded that the actions taken by the defendant in filing the complaint are consistent with the right to litigation guaranteed to everyone, and that there is no abuse in the use of this right, in such a way that it does not entail liability for the damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the complaint, which entails the latter’s request to oblige her to perform the complaint. Compensation for him is based on no evidence, and the court rules to reject it.

. The Court of Appeal ruled to overturn a preliminary ruling issued against the plaintiff, and acquitted him of the accusation due to weak evidence.