1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.185 OF 1993. Bhaurao Jairao Kadam, Age 44 years, Occ.Teacher, R/o Kondha, Tq.Nanded, District Nanded. ... Appellant. Versus 1. Parvatibai W/o Mahadu Kadam, Age 35 years,Occ. Agriculturel, R/o Kondha, Taluka and District Nanded. 2. Mahadu S/o Govind Kadam, Age 40 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Mondha, Taluka and District Nanded. ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.G.Godhamgaonkar, advocate for the Appellant. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 19.11.2009. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against concurrent judgments rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court in suit (RCS No. 684/1988) and Appeal (RCA No.146/1989). Both the Courts dismissed the appellant's suit for recovery of damages on account of his malicious prosecution by the Respondent. 2. Indisputably, the appellant was prosecuted in Criminal case instituted on complaint of the the defendants. The appellant faced the prosecution for the offences punishable U/s 147, 148, 149 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. along with co-accused by name Jairam and others. He was acquitted from the said Criminal Case No.44/1984. 3. The trial Court framed necessary issues below Exh.20. The trial Court held that the appellant failed to establish element of malicious nature of the Criminal complaint. It was not proved that the Criminal complaint was 3 lodged without having any probable cause. The admitted fact is that the prosecution was instituted after due investigation of the FIR lodged against the appellant and others. The concurrent findings of the facts by the Courts below would make it amply clear that the complaint filed by the defendants was based on the incident of assault which occurred on 8.5.1984. The appellant admitted that there took place "Mara Mari" on 8.5.1984. He further admitted that proceedings U/s 107 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated by the Police against himself and the defendants. There was also some litigation going on between the defendants and his brother in respect of the land in question. The trial Court noticed that the appellant erroneously pretended that he was not aware as to who was in possession of the suit land in question. 4. Considering the concurrent findings of the facts, I find it difficult to locate any substantial question of law as such. It appears that this Second Appeal was admitted by the Hon'ble Judge (Mutalik,J.) treating the grounds 4 Nos.C,E, F, FF, L, M and N as shown in the Appeal Memo as the substantial questions of law. 5. At the time of final hearing, however, I could not notice any substantial question of law and that the findings rendered by both the Courts below are unassailable. Needless to say, the Second Appeal is destitute of substance. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa1851993