JUDGMENT Kendall, J.
1. The only ground taken in this second appeal against the decision of the Courts below, by which the appellant was ordered to pay damages for the malicious prosecution of the respondent, is that the institution of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, does not amount to a malicious prosecution. This question has, however, been settled by authority. In Crowdy v. O'Reilly [1913] 17 C.W.N. 554 a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in 1912 definitely decided that proceedings under Sections 144 and 145, Criminal Procedure Code, may constitute a prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant, so that damages may be claimed for malicious prosecution. No exactly similar decision in this Court has been pointed out to me, but a Bench in 1919 decided that proceedings under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, might form the basis of an action for damages Muhammad, Niazullah Khan v. Jai Ram [1919] 41 All. 503. An attempt has been made to differentiate proceedings under Section 107 from those under Section 145, in that the former may result in the restriction of the liberty of the parson on the individual charge. The distinction, however, is more apparent than real. Damages for malicious prosecution are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for expenses incurred in the prosecution, pain to mind and body, and the loss of reputation, etc., which he has actually suffered, and not for injuries which he might have suffered, it he had been convicted.
2. No other objection has been made to the order of the Courts below, and the result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.