RSA 102/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. NC Das, the learned Sr. Counsel for the appell ants. This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the ju dgment and decree dated 5th March, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. D ivision), Tinsukia in Money Appeal No.7/2009 dismissing the appeal by affirming the judgment and decree dated 10th September, 2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Tinsukia in Money Suit No.3/2009. The appellants herein instituted Money Suit No.3/2009 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Tinsukia claiming damages for malicious prose cution contending inter alia that the defendants (respondents herein) have malic iously prosecuted the plaintiffs initially by filing an application under Sectio n 144 Cr. P.C., which was subsequently converted to a proceeding under Section 1 45 Cr. P.C., which proceeding was subsequently dismissed because of non particip ation by the defendants and hence the plaintiffs are entitled to damages for suc h malicious prosecution. The respondents/defendants contested the suit by filling written statement contending inter alia that the proceeding was initiated on th e basis of the application filed under Section 144 Cr. P.C., which proceeding, h owever, was subsequently converted to a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. b y the learned Executive Magistrate having found that there was apprehension of b reach of peace, which proceeding was though dismissed, the same does not amount to the acquittal of the plaintiffs from any criminal proceeding so as to constit ute the malicious prosecution. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the follow ing issues were framed by the learned Trial Court for consideration and decision :- 1) Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 2) Whether the suit is maintainable? 3) Whether the defendants maliciously prosecute the plai ntiffs by filing Case No.21/06 in the Court of the S.D.M., Tinsukia? 4) Whether the plaintiffs suffered loss due to the said processing? 5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree and reliefs as prayed for? The learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidenc es on record, as adduced by the parties, and also upon hearing the learned couns el for the parties dismissed the suit by holding that the initiation of the proc eeding under Sections 144/145 Cr. P.C. does not amount to prosecution of the pla intiffs and its closure does not amount to acquittal, so as to claim damages for malicious prosecution by the plaintiffs after closure of such proceeding. Being aggrieved, an appeal being Money Appeal No.7/2009 was filed by the plaintiffs, which has also been dismissed by judgment and decre e dated 5th March, 2010 by the learned First Appellate Court by concurring with the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court and by upholding the judgment an d decree passed. Hence the present appeal. It has been contended by Mr. Das, the learned Sr. Counse l that it is evident from the evidences on record discussed by the learned Court below that a proceeding under Sections 144/145 Cr. P.C. was initiated at the in stance of the defendants, which proceeding ended in dismissal because of non par ticipation by the defendants in the proceeding and since certain adverse allegat ions were made against the plaintiffs, on closure of such proceeding initiated u nder Sections 144/145 Cr. P.C., the plaintiffs are entitled to damages for malic ious prosecution. In have considered the submissions of the learned counse l for the appellants and also perused the judgments and decrees passed by the le arned Courts below. It is not in dispute that the proceeding under Section 1 44 Cr. P.C. was initiated at the instance of the defendants, which proceeding, h owever, subsequently was converted to one under Section 145 Cr. P.C. The learne d Executive Magistrate on being satisfied that there was likelihood of breach of peace in the locality, had drawn the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. The said proceeding has subsequently been dismissed due to non appearance of the de fendants at whose instance the said proceeding was initiated. The learned Executive Magistrate under Section 145(1) Cr . P.C. can initiate a proceeding if the learned Magistrate is satisfied from a r eport of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cau se breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries the reof within his local jurisdiction. The said proceeding initiated under Section 145 Cr. P.C., in view of the object for which it is initiated, cannot be termed as the prosecution for the purpose of claiming damages for malicious prosecutio n. However, in the event any derogatory statements are made by the party, at who se instance such proceeding was initiated, the other party may have a right to f ile the suit for damages for making such statement, but not for claiming damages for malicious prosecutions. That being the position, I am of the view that the learn ed Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments and decrees. The pre sent appeal, therefore, does not involve any substantial question of law for adm ission and hence not admitted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost.