ORDER A.K. Kirty, J. - This is an application u/s 561 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Ram Swarup Gupta, Om Prakash Gupta and Sri Ram Gopal against whom Jyoti Swarup Agarwal, opposite party No. 1, filed a complaint dated 19-6-1967 in the Court to the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, distinct Nainital. The prayer in this application is tat the complaint be quashed, and in the alternative the proceedings which have arisen upon the complaint be stayed during the pendency of the Civil suit between the parties which is pending at present in the court of Civil Judge, Kashipur, district Nainital. 2. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application and also the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that at this stage it is not possible to say that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action for proceedings being taken against the Applicants, for an offence punishable u/s 420 of the IPC. Certain facts which have been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application may be relevant in considering as to whether, if those facts are proved, the Applicants could really be said to have committed any act of cheating as defined u/s 420 of the IPC; but that is a matter into which I cannot go at this stage. It would be for the court concerned legally seized of the complaint to permit the Applicants to adduce evidence to establish the material facts which have been stated in the affidavit in this Court and upon which the Applicants want to rely. It will also be for that court to consider, if the aforesaid facts are established, whether the Applicants can be said to have committed even prima facie any offence of cheating. 3. The Learned Counsel submitted that the court at Kashipur has no jurisdiction to try the case, This contention also does not appear to be sound. In any event, to decide the question of jurisdiction also it may be necessary to go into certain fact and to establish those facts, it may be necessary to permit some evidence to be adduced. The Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Kali Charan Vs. State, AIR 1955 All 462 . In any event, to decide the question of jurisdiction also it may be necessary to go into certain fact and to establish those facts, it may be necessary to permit some evidence to be adduced. The Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Kali Charan Vs. State, AIR 1955 All 462 . The Learned Counsel placed reliance in particular on the following passage occurring in the judgment of the aforesaid case: (29) It was further argued for the state that the court at Farrukhabad could have jurisdiction over these cases of other places in view of Sections 79 and 182, Code of Criminal Procedure The various offences under investigation against the accused would be complete the moment they were committed any place. Such consequences as other places which could be the result of such conduct cannot be an, ingredient of those offences and therefore Section 179 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot apply in view of Kashi Ram Mehta Vs. Emperor . The offences Under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 474, IPC are not such which can be committed in more than one place and therefore Section 182, Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply. In the instant case it appears that the accused persons have not so for appeared before the Court. All that has so far happened is that a complaint has been filed and the statement of the complainant has been recorded. Therefore, in the absence of necessary evidence and material it is not possible at this stage to go into the question as to whether there are good and adequate grounds for holding that the court at Kashipur legally has no jurisdiction to try the case. This matter itself may be considered by the court seized of the complaint when necessary evidence has been given on the basis of which proper submissions can be made in regard to the question of jurisdiction. 4. Therefore, I am clearly of the' opinion that at this stage, -at any rate, the Application for the quashing of the complaint cannot be allowed. The prayer for the quashing of the complaint, therefore, must be rejected. In regard to the alternative prayer also, I do not think that merely because a civil suit has been field the proceedings in a criminal court should he stayed. The prayer for the quashing of the complaint, therefore, must be rejected. In regard to the alternative prayer also, I do not think that merely because a civil suit has been field the proceedings in a criminal court should he stayed. It is now well settled that the same set of facts or the same transaction may create civil liability and also criminal liability. That being so, it is also evident that proceedings in a criminal court ought to go on independently of the civil case. The prayer in the alternative which has been made by the Applicants must, therefore, be also dismissed. 5. There is, however, one matter which prima facie appears to the not unlikely. It is that the Applicants who reside at Aligarh might be unduly harassed because of the complaint filed against them in the court of the Judicial Magistrate at Kashipur. The complaint itself appears to have been filed on 19-6-1967. On 27-6-1967 the complainant filed an application in the court of the judicial Magistrate making certain allegations and praying that warrants for the arrest of the accused persons be issued. This application does not even appear to have been supported by an affidavit. It may be noted here that neither in the complaint nor in the statement which was made by the complainant in the court, were any such allegations made a are to be found in the application dated 27-6-1967. The learned Magistrate on 27-6-1967 itself ordered that the warrants should be issued against the Applicants. From the order of the learned Magistrate itself it appears that he acted rather imprudently and also probably in hot haste. I do not think that in the circumstances of the case, there was any justification for issuing straight away warrants for the arrest of the Applicants. In the circumstances mentioned above, it is likely that the Applicants may entertain a serious apprehension that they will be put to considerable harassment and hardship by being required to be present in the court at Kashipur from time to time although they are residents of Aligarh. While, therefore, dismissing the present application, I think, in the interest of justice, some safeguards should be provided for. 6. In view of the conduct on the part of the Judicial Magistrate referred to above, I do not think that it would be expedient to leave the case in his hands. While, therefore, dismissing the present application, I think, in the interest of justice, some safeguards should be provided for. 6. In view of the conduct on the part of the Judicial Magistrate referred to above, I do not think that it would be expedient to leave the case in his hands. I, therefore, order that the case should be transferred from the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur to some other appropriate court. The papers of this case may be sent to the learned Sessions Judge Namital who is directed to transfer the case to some other appropriate court. Further, I am of the opinion that in the first instance the court which will now be seized of the case should dispense with the personal attendance of all the accused persons permitting them to appear by pleader. The accused persons should be required to personally attend the court only if the court is of the opinion that their personal presence on any particular day is necessary for the hearing of the case. In so, far as the Applicant No. 1 is concerned, he is a man aged about 77 years. His personal presence, therefore ought to be dispensed with and he should not be made to appear in court unless his presence in person is absolutely necessary. The court which will now try the case, should see to it that the Applicants are not unnecessarily harassed by frequent adjournments in the case.