Judgment:
Daniels, J.
1. These applications arise out of the same riot in Connection with which Appeal No. 819 has just been decided. A cross-complaint was filed by the party who were accused in that case. It was dismissed under Section 203. In his judgment in the riot case the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the cross-complaint should not have been dealt with so summarily and asked the District Magistrate to set aside the order of dismissal. The Magistrate upon this did set aside the order of dismissal, and it is against this order and that portion of the Sessions Judge's order which refers to this matter that the present applications are filed.
2. The applicants' complaint is two-fold. Firstly, they say that if the Sessions Judge wished to take action he should have set aside the complaint himself instead of asking the Magistrate to do so. In the second place, they say that the order of dismissal should not have been set aside without notice to them.
3. As regards the first point, I am, to some extent, in agreement with the applicants, but I do not think that this is a sufficient reason for setting aside the order which has been passed.
4. As to the second point, there are several rulings of this Court and of other Courts, e.g., Angan v. Ram Pirbhan 18 Ind. Cas. 146 : 10 A.L.J. 531 : 14 Cr. L.J. 2 : 35 A. 78, that where a complaint has been dismissed under Section 203 without notice to the accused the dismissal may be set aside without notice to the accused. On the whole, I am not prepared to interfere and I reject the applications.