JUDGMENT 1. In this case a rule was granted calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the order of the Bench of Honorary Magistrates, dated the 7th February 1903, should not be set aside and further inquiry ordered on the ground that the said order was made without giving the Petitioner an opportunity of calling his witnesses or putting his case properly before the Bench. The order which is complained of is an order dismissing two cross-cases and acquitting the Defendants on charges under sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts are that one Mrs. Parker complained against Mr. Bellew for an offence under that section, and Mr. Bellew brought a similar charge against Mrs. Parker. 3. The Honorary Magistrates having heard the evidence on behalf of Mr. Bellew framed a charge against Mrs. Parker and having heard the evidence on behalf of Mrs. Parker framed a charge against Mr. Bellew. Those charges were framed under sec. 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which enables the Magistrate to frame a charge, if in his opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused person has commuted an offence triable before him. The result therefore is that by framing these charges against Mrs. Parker an against Mr. Bellow, the Honorary Magistrates indicated that in their opinion there were grounds for presuming that the respective Defendants had committed the respective offences which were charged against them. But having framed the charges the Magistrates, without hearing any further evidence for or against either party, proceeded to dismiss the cases and acquit the Defendants. 4. In our opinion the Magistrates were not entitled to take that course. Having by their action indicated that a prima facie case existed against the Defendants on the two charges, they were bound in our opinion to try those cases before pasting any order on the charges which they thought proper to frame. They have passed one order applying to both cases. In our opinion they were not entitled to pass one order applying to two distinct charges between distinct individuals. 5. They have passed one order applying to both cases. In our opinion they were not entitled to pass one order applying to two distinct charges between distinct individuals. 5. We accordingly set the order aside, and we remit both the cases to the Chief Presidency Magistrate in order that he may proceed with them from the stage which they had reached in the Court of the Honorary Magistrates, allowing the parties to recall and cross-examine the witnesses as they may be advised and to adduce any such further evidence as they may think proper. With these observations we make the rule absolute setting aside the order complained of and remitting the cases to the Chief Presidency Magistrate in order that he may proceed with and try and dispose of them according to law.