JUDGMENT G.N. PRASAD, J. 1. These are two applications under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the 'Code' by the same petitioner who figures as the sole accused in two complaint cases relating to the same occurrence, one instituted by Inderdeo Raut (the opposite party in Cr. Misc. No. 87) and the other by Sri Lall (the Opposite Party in Cr. Misc. No. 86). The complainant Inderdeo Raut is the Chaukidar of the Rest House of the Forest Department at Udaipur near Bettiah town and complainant Sri Lall is the peon of the Lion's Club at Bettiah. The two complaints which were filed on the 3rd January 1970 relate to an incident which is alleged to have taken place during the night intervening between the 31st December 1969 and the 1st January 1970. It is alleged that on the aforesaid night several local officers, doctors, lawyers and others had assembled at the Udaipur Forest Rest House for the purpose of ringing out the old year and ringing in the new. At about the mid-night when the tables had been laid for dinner, it is alleged that the petitioner, who was then the Deputy Conservator of Forests, came to the Rest House in a state of drunkenness with two Bazaru women and wanted to enter into the Guest House. He asked the persons who were present in the Rest House to clear out saying that their presence in the Rest House was unauthorised. A written permission for holding the function was produced before the petitioner, but in anger he tore it down and began to assault Inderdeo Raut, the Chaukidar. When the peon Sri Lall went to save the Chaukidar, the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted him as well. 2. The complainants of both the cases were examined on solemn affirmation on the same day, namely on the 3rd January 1970 and the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate directed that an inquiry should be held as contemplated by section 202 of the Code. In the first instance, the inquiry was entrusted to Sri R.K. Sinha, a Deputy Magistrate of Bettiah. But in the meantime the prosecution report of another case, to which a reference will be made hereafter, was received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, wherein the said Sri R.K. Sinha was named as one of the accused. In the first instance, the inquiry was entrusted to Sri R.K. Sinha, a Deputy Magistrate of Bettiah. But in the meantime the prosecution report of another case, to which a reference will be made hereafter, was received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, wherein the said Sri R.K. Sinha was named as one of the accused. Thereupon the inquiry was recalled from the file of Sri R.K. Sinha and entrusted to another Deputy Magistrate of Bettiah, named Sri M.K. Verma. 3. The prosecution report to which reference has been made above had been submitted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Champaran Division, with respect to certain offences under the Forest Act and other offences, said to have been committed by 25 persons, including several Medical Officers, the Treasury Officer at Bhaisalotan, Shri R.K. Sinha, certain Engineers lawyers, shop-keepers and businessmen of Bettiah. It was alleged that these 25 persons had indulged in trespass and illegal shooting in the protected forest and game sanctuary area and in unauthorised occupation of the Forest Rest House. It was further alleged that the petitioner happened to reach the Rest House along with his wife and some lady relations and remonstrated with the accused persons, one of whom was Dr. S.N. Mishra, the Civil Assistant Surgeon of M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah and another accused named Islam Barmik, whereupon the alleged intruders, who were in a drunken condition, left the Rest House after breaking some crockeries. Report relating to the said occurrence had been made in the first instance by the Forester, Sri Narsingh Prasad, on the 9th January, 1970, whereupon a departmental inquiry was held by Sri A.K. Sinha, Assistant Conservator of Forest and on prima facie case having been disclosed, the prosecution report was submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bettiah, on the 17th January, 1970. 4. On the 17th January 1970, Sri M.K. Verma was acting as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and so the prosecution report submitted by the Assistant Conservator of Forest and endorsed by the present petitioner was laid before him. On that occasion, the learned Magistrate, Shri M.K. Verma, heard the argument of a lawyer, Sri M.N. Verma, who asserted that the prosecution report had been filed by the Forest Department with the ulterior motive of blackmailing the witnesses of the two complaint cases filed earlier by Inderdeo Rout and Sri Lall against the petitioner. On that occasion, the learned Magistrate, Shri M.K. Verma, heard the argument of a lawyer, Sri M.N. Verma, who asserted that the prosecution report had been filed by the Forest Department with the ulterior motive of blackmailing the witnesses of the two complaint cases filed earlier by Inderdeo Rout and Sri Lall against the petitioner. Sri M.N. Verma further argued before the Magistrate, Sri M.K. Verma that the prosecution report had been got up with untrue allegations on the 9th January 1970 after a news item had appeared in the Searchlight of the 7th January 1970 that two complaints had been filed on the 3rd January 1970 against the Divisional forest Officer, namely the present petitioner. The lawyer, Sri M.N. Verma, drew the attention of the Magistrate, Sri M.K. Verma that even the enquiring officer, Sri R.K. Sinha and the lawyer, Sri M.N. Verma, who had filed Vakalatnama in the complaint cases of the earlier date, had been made accused in the Forest Act case with ulterior motive. The lawyer, Sri M.N. Verma, also stated that two of the accused persons named in the prosecution report could not possibly have been present in the Rest House on the relevant occasion since one of them Dr. Shambhu Saran, was at Mysore and the other, Dr. R.N. Sinha was on emergency duty at Bettiah hospital. On the 21st January 1970, the learned Magistrate. Sri M.K. Verma passed a long order in the Forest Act case. Besides commenting upon the delay in filing the prosecution report, he directed that two of the accused persons of the Forest Act case, Dr. Shambhu Saran and Dr. R.N. Sinha, should file affidavits in support of the contention made by the lawyer, Sri M.N. Verma. The learned Magistrate, Sri M.K. Verma, further observed that he would like to see the cutting of the Searchlight of the 7th January 1970 before passing an order for issuing notices for contempt of court, as it had been argued that the prosecution report was designed to blackmail the enquiring officer, Sri A.K. Sinha and the lawyer, Sri M.N. Verma, figuring in the two complaint cases. In the last paragraph of his order the learned Magistrate observed as follows:– "In view of the facts discussed above, I am of considered opinion that in this case an enquiry under section 202 Cr. P.C. is necessary. In the last paragraph of his order the learned Magistrate observed as follows:– "In view of the facts discussed above, I am of considered opinion that in this case an enquiry under section 202 Cr. P.C. is necessary. Put up before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for endorsing the Enquiry to a Magistrate under section 202 Cr. P.C." Thereupon the permanent Sub Divisional Magistrate recorded an order in the Forest Act case on the 24th January 1970 as follows:– "Perused the order of the learned Magistrate. This involves many points into which a detailed enquiry must be made. Sri M.K. Verma, Magistrate 1st Class should enquire and report by 25.2.1970. The paper cutting has now been filed. Perused it. An order will be passed on the charge of contempt of the Court after receiving the enquiry report." 5. It appears that after Sri M.K. Verma took up the inquiry into the Forest Act case, be served a notice upon the petitioner to appear before him on the 10th March, 1970 and the inquiry lingered on for several months till the 6th July, 1970. Ultimately on the 29th July 1970, the petitioner filed a petition before the Sessions Judge, Motihari, for an order that the inquiry into the two complaint cases should be recalled from Shri M.K. Verma and entrusted to the Additional Collector, Motihari. In his order dated the 26th November, 1970, the learned Sessions Judge observed that he was not inclined to interfere with the discretion of the Sub Divisional Magistrate in the matter of entrusting an inquiry under section 202 of the Code and rejected the transfer petition with an observation in the following terms:– "If he feels that the enquiry by a local officer will not meet the ends of justice he may request the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate to make an enquiry." Having failed to obtain a relief from the Sessions Court, the petitioner has filed these two applications in this Court. 6. Mr. B.K. Banerji has argued that in the events which have happened, as narrated above, the petitioner feels convinced that he will not receive a fair deal at the hands of Sri M.K. Verma, to whom the inquiry of the complaint cases as also of the Forest Act case has been entrusted by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. In support of this contention Mr. In support of this contention Mr. Banerji has placed before me the strong terms in which Sri M.K. Verma recorded his Older in the Forest Act case. Mr. Banerji has further argued that from the fact that some of the local Magistrate and other ranking officers and lawyers figure as accused in the Forest Act case, the petitioner has a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he will not receive a fair deal at the hands of any local Magistrate of Bettiah. Mr. Banerji, there fore, submits that this is a fit case where this Court should intervene and order that the matter should be transferred to a District other than the District of Champaran. 7. Mr. S.C. Ghose, who appears on behalf of the opposite party in both the cases, did not dispute the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner that he had a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he would not receive a fair deal at the hands of Sri M.K. Verma who displayed sufficient bias against the petitioner in his long order in the Forest Act case. Mr. Ghose, however, pointed out that by a subsequent order passed after the order of the learned Sessions Judge the enquiry was recalled from Sri M.K. Verma and entrusted to another Magistrate, Sri N.N. Sen Gupta. According to Sri Ghose, therefore, the petitioner can have no reasonable apprehension that he will not receive a fair deal in the case. I find, however, that Mr. N.N. Sen Gupta had been posted at Bettiah at the time when these cases came to be instituted there and I have been informed by the learned Government Advocate that Sri N.N. Sen Gupta is still working as a Magistrate at Bettiah. It seems to me that the bias against the petitioner, which is apparent from the order passed by Sri M.K. Verma in the Forest Act case, is not confined either to Sri R.K. Sinha, or to Sri M.K. Verma, but it appears to be more wide-spread and, at any rate, I have not the slightest doubt in my mind on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, that there are indications that the bias against the petitioner is shared by the Bettiah Magistracy as a whole. It is natural under the circumstances that the petitioner should have reasonable apprehension in his mind that in respect of the two complaint cases pending against him he will not receive a fair deal at the hands of any local Magistrate. 8. It is, however, manifest that only the inquiry under section 202 of the Code cannot and should not be transferred. The transfer must be of the complaint cases themselves to a place free from the local bias and influence. Before dealing with the question as to where the two complaint cases should be transferred, I must, however, deal with certain questions of law which have been posed before me by Sri S.C. Ghose. 9. The First contention of Mr. Ghose is that this Court should not exercise its power under section 526 of the Code because the legal position is well settled that an accused has no locus standi in an inquiry under section 202 of the Code and that it is not his concern as to how and where such an inquiry should be made. According to Mr. Ghose an accused, is not entitled to move this Court for transfer of the case under section 526 of the Code prior to the issue of processes against him, as contemplated by section 204 of the Code. In my judgment, there is no force in this contention. The language of section 526 shows that this Court has wide powers of ordering a transfer of any criminal case pending in any criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction, if it is satisfied that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial can not be had in any criminal court subordinate to it, or that such an order is expedient for the ends of justice. In my judgment, the power vested in the High Court under section 526 of the Code is not dependent upon the stage to which a criminal case has reached. Therefore, though an accused may not be entitled to participate in an inquiry under section 202 of the Code, even then it is competent for the High Court to act under section 526. Therefore, though an accused may not be entitled to participate in an inquiry under section 202 of the Code, even then it is competent for the High Court to act under section 526. All that is necessary for the purpose is that it should be made to appear to the High Court that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial can not be had in any criminal court subordinate to it or that an order of transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. I have, therefore, no hesitation in overruling the contention of Mr. Ghose that this Court cannot make an order under section 526 in a matter in which the accused has no locus standi to participate in an inquiry under section 202 of the Code. 10. Mr. Ghose has then argued that the term "inquiry" which occurs in clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of section 526 does not include an inquiry under section 202 of the Code. The reason, according to Mr. Ghose, is that an inquiry under section 202 may be entrusted even to an ordinary citizen who is not a Magistrate or a public servant. In dealing with this contention it is necessary to point out that the term "inquiry" is defined in clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 4, which is the definition section, to include "every enquiry other than a trial conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court." In the instant case, the inquiry under section 202 has been entrusted to a Magistrate and therefore, upon the plain words of clause (k) of section 4 (1) of the Act, I have no doubt in my mind that the inquiry now pending in the hands of the Magistrate, Sri. N.N. Sen Gupta is an inquiry within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am also clearly of the view that the Order "inquiry" must be read in the same sense throughout the body of the Code and that there in no warrant for giving a restricted meaning to the word "inquiry" either in section 202 or in section 526 of the Code. The fact that the word "inquiry" includes an inquiry under section 202 of the Code is clear from the observations made by Jwala Prasad, J. in Ram Barai Singh vs. Ram Pratap Rai, 21 Cr. L Journal Reports 594. The fact that the word "inquiry" includes an inquiry under section 202 of the Code is clear from the observations made by Jwala Prasad, J. in Ram Barai Singh vs. Ram Pratap Rai, 21 Cr. L Journal Reports 594. At page 596 of the report his Lordships observed as follows:– "An enquiry has been defined in section 4 (k) to include every enquiry other than a trial, and is to be conducted under the Code by a Magistrate or a Court. The object of an enquiry is to take evidence in the case and to determine prima facie the truth or falsity of certain facts in order to take further action thereon. Under section 202 a Magistrate who is authorised to take cognizance of a complaint may hold an enquiry into the truth or falsity of the complaint before issuing process against the accused. This enquiry is to be made by the Magistrate who has taken seisin of the case upon a complaint being filed before him under section 190 (1), or upon a transfer of the case having been made under section 192 of the Code." I must, therefore, overrule the contention of Mr. Ghose that the expression "enquiry" which occurs in section 526 (1) (a) does not include an inquiry under section 202 of the Code. 11. The question then arises what order should be made in the present case. Mr. Banerji has urged that the petitioner has since retired from the Government service and that he is now residing at Dhanbad and is also suffering from some disease and therefore, the case should be transferred to a central place like Patna. I cannot, however, take only the convenience of the petitioner into consideration. I must also have due regard to the convenience of the complainants of the two complaint cases. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am of the opinion that the two complaint cases should be withdrawn from the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Bettiah and transferred to the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Muzaffarpur. An order to this effect will imply that even the enquiry now in the hands of Sri N.N. Sen Gupta at Bettiah will be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Muzaffarpur, and I order accordingly. An order to this effect will imply that even the enquiry now in the hands of Sri N.N. Sen Gupta at Bettiah will be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Muzaffarpur, and I order accordingly. It will now be for the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate of Muzaffarpur to enquire into the complaints himself or pass any other appropriate order which he may deem necessary in these cases. 12. The two applications are accordingly, allowed and the rule issued in both cases is thus made absolute. Applications allowed.