JUDGMENT 1. In this case a rule was granted calling on the District Magistrate to shew cause why an order made by the Sessions Judge of Dinajpur, directing a further enquiry into the complaints of one Nendi Hariani should not be set aside on the ground that there had already been an application to this Court for a rule to shew cause why a further enquiry should not be held and that rule had been refused. The facts are that one Nandi and two other persons preferred a charge of rape against a Police Sub-Inspector named Bepin Behari De. The District Magistrate made the case over for investigation to a Deputy Magistrate with third class powers under sec. 202, Cr. P. C., and eventually on receipt of his report and after hearing the complainants he dismissed the complaint under sec. 203 and directed the prosecution of the complainants under sec. 211. A rule was applied for calling on the District Magistrate to shew cause why a further enquiry should not be held, and why the order for the prosecution of the complainants should not be set aside. The rule was issued only on the latter ground and it was discharged on the ground that the case having been disposed of in accordance with secs. 202 and 203 of the Code, the order for the prosecution of the complainant was not illegal. 2. The complainants were accordingly prosecuted before the learned Sessions Judge under sec. 211, I. P. C., and were acquitted, and the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing all the witnesses who came to give evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that Bepin Behari De's evidence was utterly untrue and that further enquiry ought to be held into the truth of the charge against him. He accordingly passed an order for a further enquiry. The District Magistrate however (apparently without taking any evidence) discharged Bepin Behari De. The Sessions Judge held that this discharge which purported to be under sec. 209 was irregular as no evidence had been taken and directed a proper judicial enquiry under Chap. XVII. It is this order we are asked to set aside, and the only ground on which the present rule was granted was that the matter was concluded by the Court's order in the prior application. In our opinion the rule cannot be made absolute on this ground. XVII. It is this order we are asked to set aside, and the only ground on which the present rule was granted was that the matter was concluded by the Court's order in the prior application. In our opinion the rule cannot be made absolute on this ground. At the time when the earlier application was made the charge against Bepin Behari De had been legally dismissed and a prosecution was pending against the person who had made the charge that prosecution brought to light fresh evidence and the order for further enquiry made by the learned Sessions Judge was made upon materials totally different from those which were before this Court when the further enquiry was refused and under totally different circumstances. In the former case a prosecution had been directed against the applicant under sec. 211 and was pending, in the latter case the applicant had successfully met that prosecution and had succeeded in showing that there were considerable grounds for supposing that the charge she made was not false. 3. Under the circumstances the order of the Sessions Judge was not illegal. The rule therefore must be discharged. In view of the representation made by the Sessions Judge and District Magistrate in their letters, we think it right to point out that the rules are addressed to the District Magistrate as a matter of convenience and in accordance with the practice for appeals followed under sec. 422, Cr. P. C., the Local Government having under that section appointed the District Magistrate as the officer to receive notices of appeals. In this case the rule granted was against the order of the Sessions Judge and that officer was the proper person to show cause. The order had nothing to do with the previous order of the District Magistrate and that officer is in error in supposing that he was entitled as of right to support the rule, because the order of the Sessions Judge was opposed to his previous order. Moreover under the terms of the rule the District Magistrate was not required to support it. The remarks and suggestion in the letters of both officers directed against each other were entirely out of place and are much to be deprecated.