JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.8.2006 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 14-B/2003, whereby suit filed by the respondent was decreed directing appellants to pay Rs. 60,000/present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit on 18.9.2003 against the appellants alleging that respondent No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondents No.3 to 5. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 is the father of appellant No.2 and 3. It was alleged that the land bearing survey No. 490/2 situated at village Kerwasa, Tehsil, Jaora belongs to the appellants. It was alleged that there is a dispute between the parties relating to right of way, which is pending before Tehsildar Jaora under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code in which 6.8.2003 was the date fixed. It was alleged that to create pressure a false complaint was lodged on 23.9.2002 at P.S.Ratlam by the appellants upon which case was registered against the respondents under section 107 CrPC. It was alleged that appellants also filed a private complaint against the respondent in the Court of JMFC, Jaora for an offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) (xiv) of SC, ST Act on 26.1.2001 and examined appellant No. 1 Balram, Appellant No. 2 Radheshyam, appellant No. 3 Badrilal, Hanumantsingh, Bagdiram, Nirbhayram and Rajendra Kumar alleging that on 15.5.2001 at about 8.00 a.m. respondents abused the appellants in the name of their caste. Upon the complaint case was registered against the respondents at Crime No. 381/2001 vide order dated 1.8.2001 and arrest warrants were issued against the respondents. It was alleged that the case was fixed for appearance of respondents on 14.10.2001 and case was committed to the Court of Special Judge vide order dated 22.1.2001, which was registered as Special Case No. 5/2002. It was alleged that respondents filed two petitions before this Court against the order, whereby the cognizance of the offence was taken, which was numbered as CrRNo. 495/2001 and 736/2001, whereby vide order dated 13.12.2001 operation of the order of arrest warrants was stayed and the respondents were directed to furnish security bonds for an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. It was alleged that respondents filed two petitions before this Court against the order, whereby the cognizance of the offence was taken, which was numbered as CrRNo. 495/2001 and 736/2001, whereby vide order dated 13.12.2001 operation of the order of arrest warrants was stayed and the respondents were directed to furnish security bonds for an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. It was alleged that thereafter vide order 14.12.2002 respondents were discharged as it was found by the Court that no offence under section 3 (1) (x) (xiv) of SC, ST Act was made out. It was alleged that respondents are the members of reputed family and respondent No.2 is an elected member of Krishi Upaj Mandi while respondent No.1 is the President of M.P. Bhartiya Kisan Sangh. It was alleged that right from beginning appellants were knowing that the complaint lodged by the appellants is false. It was alleged that since there was dispute of right of way, therefore, false complaint was lodged by the appellants. It was alleged that because of the false complaint, respondents were defamed. It was alleged that because of the false complaint respondents were required to appear before learned JMFC and also before Special Judge from 1.8.2001 to 14.12.2001 on 20 occasions. It was alleged that respondents have spent Rs. 60,000/-, for which decree was prayed, break-up of which is as under: 1) Expenses in filing two petitions before this Court Rs. 8,000/- 2) Expenses incurred by the respondents in the Court of JMFC Rs. 5.000/- 3) Expenses incurred as Lawyer fee in the Court of Special Judge, Ratlam Rs. 5,000/- 4) Transportation expenses for going to Ratlam, Jaora and Indore Rs. 10,000/- 5) Expenses incurred in obtaining copies Rs. 2,000/- 6) Expenses towards mental agony Rs. 30,000/- Total Rs. 60,000/- 3. Suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statement, wherein plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that complaint lodged by the appellants was false. It was denied that any amount was spent by the respondents. It was denied that because of the complaint reputation of the respondents was damaged. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. 4. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit, against which present appeal has been filed. In the suit respondents filed the documents Ex. P/1 to P/16. Ex. It was denied that because of the complaint reputation of the respondents was damaged. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. 4. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit, against which present appeal has been filed. In the suit respondents filed the documents Ex. P/1 to P/16. Ex. P/1 is the order dated 14.12.2001 passed by Special Judge, Ratlam in Special Case No. 5/2002, whereby respondents were discharged. Ex. P/2 is the notice dated 18.6.2003, whereby compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed by the respondents. Ex. P/3 is the acknowledgment. Ex. P/4 is the complaint lodged by the appellants in the Court of JMFC dated 27.6.2001.Ex. P/5 to P/12 are the statements recorded under section 200-202 CrPC of Balaram, Radheshyam, Badrilal, Hanumantsingh, Nandram, Birdichand, Nirbhayramand Rajendra Kumar. Ex. P/13 to P/15 are the copies of the proceedings. Ex. P/16 is the promissory note, wherein the name of appellant No. 1 is shown as money lender and the name of respondent No.1 is shown as debtor. This promissory note is dated 15.9.2001 for a transaction of Rs. 30,000/-. Apart from this respondents examined Nirbhayram as PW-1, Balaram as PW-2, while appellants filed documents Ex. D/1 to D/12. Ex. Oil is the Panchnama. Ex. D/2 is the interim order dated 16.8.2005 passed by Tehsildar, Jaora. Ex. D/3 is the order passed by Naib Tehsildar, Jaora dated 20.12.2003. Ex. D/4 is the order dated 16.4.2004 passed by SOM Jaora, Ex. D/5 to D/7 are the statements of Nirbhayram, Chensingh and Rajaram. Ex. D/8 is the Panchnama. Ex. D/9 is the order dated 2.5.2006 passed by Addl. Commissioner, Ujjain Ex. D/10 is the reply to the notice of which postal receipts are Ex. D/11 and D/12 Apart from the documentary evidence appellants have examined Balaram S/o Kewalji ass DW-1, Nandram as DW-2 and Nirbhayram as DW-3. 5. Shri B.S. Joshi, learned counsel for appellants argued at length and submits that impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that learned trial Court committed error in decreeing the suit filed by the respondents. It is submitted that only because the complaint was filed by the appellants. wherein the respondents were discharged will not make them entitled to file a suit for compensation. It is submitted that learned trial Court has awarded Rs. It is submitted that learned trial Court committed error in decreeing the suit filed by the respondents. It is submitted that only because the complaint was filed by the appellants. wherein the respondents were discharged will not make them entitled to file a suit for compensation. It is submitted that learned trial Court has awarded Rs. 60.000/ - for which no evidence is on record to show that in fact respondents incurred a sum of Rs. 60.000/-. Learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Sheikh Mohammad Anis v. Smt. Sjabana Khan. 2007 (III) MPWN 13 . wherein this Court held that in a suit for compensation on account of malicious prosecution plaintiff failed to prove that act of defendant was harmful to him or has affected his reputation, suit tiled by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court be set aside. 6. Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for respondents, submits that after perusal of evidence on record learned trial Court decreed the suit, which is based on due appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Babulal v. Ghasiram. 1970 JLJ 1007. wherein in a case where complaint itself is per se defamatory together with other offences and no prima facie proof found for per se defamatory offence, it was held that suit for damages lies. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Girja Prasad Sharma v. Umashankur Pathak, 1972 JLJ 182 = AIR 1973 MP 79 , wherein this Court held that where knowingly false allegations are made. want of reasonable and probable cause is clearly established similarly malice which means an intent to use legal process for an ulterior purpose can also be inferred. the suit for compensation is maintainable. It is submitted that since findings recorded by the learned Court below are based on due appreciation of evidence, therefore, appeal tiled by the appellants has no merit and the same be dismissed. 7. From perusal of the record it is evident that there was dispute between the parties regarding the land and the matter was pending before Tehsildar. It is submitted that since findings recorded by the learned Court below are based on due appreciation of evidence, therefore, appeal tiled by the appellants has no merit and the same be dismissed. 7. From perusal of the record it is evident that there was dispute between the parties regarding the land and the matter was pending before Tehsildar. Jaora in which order was passed on 20.10.2003 and the order was passed by SDM on 16.4.2004 and also the order was passed by Revenue Commissioner on 2.5.2006. From perusal of the document Ex. P/8, which is the Panchnama filed by respondents, it is evident that appellants are from SC, ST category and are poor persons. There is no evidence adduced by the respondents to the effect that complaint was lodged by the appellants without any basis. From perusal of the order dated 14.12.2002 Ex. P/1, it is evident that the complaint lodged by the appellants was to the effect that appellants were restrained from right of way. Respondents were discharged at the stage of charge on the ground that at the place where the appellants were abused was not the public place and also the place from where appellants were restrained from their right of way was not belonging to the appellants. This itself is sufficient to indicate that the complaint was not without any probable and reasonable cause. while for prosecuting on account of malicious prosecution it is a condition precedent that the prosecution shall be without any reasonable or probable cause. In view of this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is set aside. 8. With the aforesaid observations appeal stands disposal of. No order as. to costs.