The court dismissed the case and obligated him to pay fees and expenses

A man demands 200,000 dirhams in compensation for being accused of forging official documents

Al Ain Court of First Instance rejected a compensation claim filed by a man against a woman, in which he demanded that she be obligated to pay him 200,000 dirhams, in compensation for filing a lawsuit against him accusing him of forgery in official documents and their use. The court confirmed that the papers and documents were empty, indicating that the defendant’s act was caused by bad intent or to harm the plaintiff, and it was not proven from the facts and judgments that he was deliberately harmed.

In detail, a man filed a lawsuit against a woman in which he demanded to oblige her to pay him compensation for material and moral damages in the amount of 200,000 dirhams, in addition to obligating her to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney's fees, noting that the defendant filed a lawsuit accusing him of committing a crime of forgery in the form of an official document (identity card). ), and introducing a change in the card number, and adding his personal photo instead of the photo of the card holder, contrary to the truth, and the photo was used by submitting it to an employee of an insurance company as proof of identity, and a criminal case was filed against him, the plaintiff for forgery and imitation of seals, signs and stamps, and a criminal judgment was issued against him, and in the appeal, it ruled The court overturned the appealed judgment and acquitted him, and the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

In his lawsuit, the plaintiff explained that the defendant had deliberately and stubbornly insisted on harming him despite his proven innocence, so she returned again and in bad faith, taking advantage of the right to sue, and instituted a lawsuit against him, that he had forged two official documents attributed to the Ministry of Interior, by entering them both A change by deletion and addition by deleting the name and data of the institution that sponsors them, adding to them, contrary to the truth, the name and data of another guarantor, and using the image of the forged official editors, who is aware of their forgery, for what they were forged, and the criminal court ruled that the plaintiff was acquitted of what was attributed to him, and the judgment was confirmed in The appeal became final because it was not appealed, noting that he is claiming compensation for damages, as a result of the defendant's abuse of the right to sue.

The court clarified that according to the Civil Transactions Law, a person who legitimately uses his right is not responsible for the damage that results from that, and that the use of the right is not illegal unless it turns into a malicious one, and the owner did not intend to harm others, or if the interests or benefits were Which he aims to achieve are of such low importance that they are not at all commensurate with the harm that befalls others because of them.

The court indicated that the plaintiff had filed a claim for compensation for the material and moral damages he sustained as a result of the defendant’s abuse of the right to sue by complaint, pointing out that it was evident from the papers that the defendant had submitted two communications against the plaintiff, centered on the latter’s forgery of official documents and their use, The plaintiff was acquitted under the attached penal provisions because the court questioned the validity of attributing the accusation to the accused, which does not in any way interrupt the presence of the error element on the defendant's side.

The court confirmed the absence of papers and documents indicating that the defendant’s act was caused by bad intent or to undermine the plaintiff, and it was not proven from the facts and judgments that he intended to harm him, and the fact that the reported incident is not true is what negates haste, recklessness or negligence in using the right to complain or report. The filing of cases or what would take them out of the scope of the use of the legitimate right, and the papers were void of what could be considered the foregoing, but was considered a cause for maliciousness, and the claimant’s request for compensation came without a document and had to be rejected, and the court ruled, rejecting the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news