This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.12.1982 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati whereby this plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1981 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Barpeta was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff appellant had filed suit for compensation for malicious prosecution on the allegations, that he was an old man of about 55 years of age, resident of Barpeta town, having his own business and also had reputation in business circle and society. The defendant had been his tenant in a room of his premises. On 9.6.78 the defendant falsely, without any reasonable and probable cause had filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta which was sent to O. C., P. S. Sorbhog for investigation. The police on investigation found the case to be false and on 30.6.78 submitted final report. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 22.7.78 discharged the, plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that the afo­resaid compliant had set the machinery of law into motion and the plaintiff had suffered loss in reputation etc. and hence the defen­dant was liable for compensation for malicious prosecution. The defendant had resisted the suit and denied the allegations that the complaint was false and without reasonable and probable cause. The learned trial court framed necessary issues and held that there was no prosecution of the plaintiff in that the defendant had filed the complaint, the magistrate had sent it to police for enquiry and on submission of the final report the complaint was closed. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal to the learned District Judge, Kamrup did not succeed. Aggrieved the plaintiff has come in second appeal. 3. Shri R. C. Sencheti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the view taken by the learned courts below was erroneous, in that the defendant had lodged the complaint which falsely implicated the plaintiff, in that no offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code had been committed for the allegations of removal of supari (betel nut) from the room, had been found incorrect by the police on investigation and that after the complaint had come to the police for investigation and then police was investigating the allegations in the complaint the plaintiff had surrendered before the learned magistrate and, obtained bail and thus the plaintiff's reputation had suffered. The plaintiff was there­fore prosecuted and was entitled to damages for the injury that had resulted to him. Shri Sencheti, learned counsel for the appell­ant has cited Md. Amin vs. Jagendra Kumar Bannerji 51 CWN 723 wherein the Privy council had held that the test in such ma­tters is not whether proceeding had readied a stage at which they may correctly be described as prosecution but the test was whether the proceedings had reached a stage where injury to the plaintiff may result. Ramesh Chandra Basu Mazumdar vs. Brajendra Nath Paul, AIR 1950 Cal 259 and D. Rattanji Karavi vs. Bombay Municipality AIR 1945 Bombay 320 were also cited. 4. Shri D.N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the submissions on behalf of the appellant. 5. The undisputed facts were that the complaint filed by the defendant was referred to the police for inquiry and on its final report that this dispute between the parties appeared to be of civil nature the matter was closed. The Magistrate had not issued any process against the plaintiff. The Magistrate had not even taken cognizance in the matter. The plaintiff on his own, as a measure of caution had obtained bail. 6 The only question which requires consideration in this app­eal is that whether the view taken by the learned courts below that there had been no prosecution of the plaintiff was correct. 7. In the present case the Magistrate on receipt of the complaint filed by the defendant just sent it to police for inquiry. The magistrate had not even taken cognizance of the complaint. The magistrate had not exa­mined the complainant under Section 202 of the Cede of Criminal Proce­dure. The police after investigation submitted final report that the case related to civil dispute and there upon the learned magistrate and clo­sed the matter. 8. Shri R.C. Sencheti, learned counsel for the appellant has Su­bmitted that the plaintiff had to surrender and obtain bill and his reputation thereby suffered and this inquiry had resulted to the pla­intiff. It may be that the plaintiff out of apprehension in the "matter had obtained bail, but the fact also remained this no process had been issued against the plaintiff, the magistrate had not taken cognizance of the complaint and the defendant even had not been ex­amined. It may be that the plaintiff out of apprehension in the "matter had obtained bail, but the fact also remained this no process had been issued against the plaintiff, the magistrate had not taken cognizance of the complaint and the defendant even had not been ex­amined. In the circumstances therefore in my opinion it could mot be said that there was even any proceeding against the plain­tiff much less had it reached a stage where it could be said that injury could result to him. In my opinion just because the plaintiff had obtained bail, it could not be said that the machinery of cri­minal law had been set is motion and had reached the stage where the plaintiff could be said to hive suffered injury which could give rise to or justify claim to compensation for malicious prosecution. The principles for application of the test laid down in the authorities cited for the appellant are not attracted on the facts of the present case, where the Magistrate, before whom alone could it be said that prosecution proceedings had been taken, had not been taken cognizance, i.e. had not even applied mind to the allegations in the complaint. In my opinion where the Magistrate, before whom a complaint is filed just sent it to police for inquiry, without even taking cognizance, it should not be said that any prosecution proceedings had been taken. The findings of the learned courts below, therefore, were correct. 9. The police had found the 'open lock' of the defendant on the door of the room which was earlier in defendant's tenancy, even though no material in regard to 'supari' had been found. Shri Sancheti, learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized that no evidence of any theft had been found and has contended that complaint in that regard was manifestly false. The complaint was under Section 457 and 21QIIC. In so far as the offence under section 457 I.P.C. was concerned the fact that the lock of the defendant on the door of the room was found was significant for the complainant's defence version was that he had not vacated the room and with 'supari' inside he had put his lock on the door of the room and that when he had learnt about the occupation of the room by the plaintiff he had lodged the complaint before the Magistrate. If indeed the defendant had vacated and the plaintiff had taken possession the lock of the defendant even though open which was found by the police should not have been on the door of the room. It could therefore not be said that the complaint was manifestly false In any case the police report was that it was a matter of civil dispute and the matter was closed and it could not be said that there was manifest absence of reasonable and probable cause for the complaint. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the view taken by the learned courts below was correct. 11. This appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs is made.