Short Note : 1. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this application- are that on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Gangaram s/o Nanaji, a case was instituted by the police against the applicant who is practicing as an Advocate at Ratlam and against respondent No. 2-Ishwarlal alias Milan Seth. 2. It appears that according to the complainant, he had engaged the applicant as his counsel through respondent No. 2 to file a criminal complaint in September, 1975 and also paid Rs. 200 towards his fees through him; that respondent NO.2 also obtained a sum of Rs. 300 for payment to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and also made a further demand of Rs. 150/-for payment to the Sub-Inspector Police, Tal and Rs. 100 for his remuneration. However, when the complainant came to know that no criminal case was filed, he lodged a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaora on 18-10-1975 but no action having been taken on that application, he lodged the first information report on 26th November, 1975 on the basis of which the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are being prosecuted. 3. On 3-2-1978, the petitioner submitted an application under section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking time on the ground that he wanted to get the case transferred to some other Court. The learned Magistrate Shri Bansal by the impugned order dated 3rd February, 1978 dismissed that application, framed the charges against the petitioner on the same day and observed that though he had dismissed the application of the petitioner for tile transfer of his case from his Court, yet due to his own persuna1 reasons he did not think it fit to decide the case, hence it be sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Ratlam for transfer of the case from his Court to any other Competent Court. 4. Held: According to the petitioner, when he had moved the application for transfer of the case, the learned Judge should not have proceeded with the case, in framing the charges when he himself felt that due to his own personal reasons, the case should not be tried by him and should be transferred to some other Competent Court. 5. 4. Held: According to the petitioner, when he had moved the application for transfer of the case, the learned Judge should not have proceeded with the case, in framing the charges when he himself felt that due to his own personal reasons, the case should not be tried by him and should be transferred to some other Competent Court. 5. Section 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that no Judge or Magistrate shall, except with the permission of the Court to which the appeal lies from his Court, try or commit any case to or in which he is a party, or personally interested, and no Judge or Magistrate shall hear an appeal from any judgment or order passed or made by himself. This section puts a restriction on the Judge or the Magistrate that in such a case he shall, not try or commit for trial any case in which he is personally interested. The conduct of the learned Magistrate in dismissing the petitioners application seeking time to get the case transferred in one breath and in another breath immediately thereafter framing the charges, clearly has given reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has not acted with an unbiased mind which is an abuse of the pr 0cess of the Court. 6. The provisions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised sparingly, in suitable cases only and, in my opinion, this is a fit case in which this power should be exercised. It is clear from the order of the learned Magistrate that he himself knew the reason why he will not be able to give justice to the petitioner but still he dismissed the application of the petitioner and proceeded to frame the charges. As a matter of fact, when the transfer application was moved, the learned Magistrate ought to have given him some reasonable time and should not have acted in such a hasty manner in framing the charges, more so when he himself felt that the case should be tried in some other Competent Court, The conduct of the learned Magistrate in these circumstances, is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and against all cannons of justice. When the learned Magistrate himself was of the view that for certain personal reasons, which he has not disclosed in the order, he cannot dispense the justice to the petitioner, he should not have proceeded to try the case at all and ought not to have proceeded to frame the charges, because framing of charge is an important part of the trial and needs the applicati0n of unbiased mind. It is true that the charge could be altered or added at any time before judgment is pronounced as contemplated by section 216 Cr.P.C. It is also true that if there is any error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, it shall not be recorded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact mislead by such omission or error and it has occasioned a failure of justice. Revision allowed, charges quashed and case remanded to another Judge.