Judgment P.S. Mishra J. Heard Mr. Wasi Akhtar, on the question whether after enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is taken up by the Magistrate taking cognizance, the Sessions Judge exercising power under section 408 of the Code can direct the Magistrate to transfer the case to another court of competent jurisdiction or not. 2. Mr. Akhtar's contention is that such a transfer particularly in a calc triable by a court of Session has been inhibited by express language in proviso of sub-section (2) of section 202 of the Code. 3. It appears from the order sheet of the case that when cognizance was taken and enquiry started in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, the learned Sessions Judge ordered and accordingly the Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case to the file of another judicial Magistrate. Section 202 of the Code says- “Any Magistrate on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which he is authorized to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks it, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding” This is circumscribed by the proviso which Mr. Akhtar has referred to, namely the proviso to subsection (2) of section 202 of the Code- “Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complaint to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.” The word “Magistrate” in the proviso obviously includes the Magistrate authorized to take cognizance as well as the Magistrate to whom the case is made over under section 192 of the Code. Section 192 of the Code Says that any Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence make over the case for inquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him. Section 408 of the Code empowers the Sessions Judge to transfer cases, saying that he may do so by making an order for the ends of justice. Section 192 of the Code Says that any Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence make over the case for inquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him. Section 408 of the Code empowers the Sessions Judge to transfer cases, saying that he may do so by making an order for the ends of justice. Section 408 of the Code uses the expression “Cases” and not either “enquiry” or “trial”. A case may be pending for enquiry or trial Nonetheless the power conferred upon the Session Judge under section 408 of the Code in my view is wide enough to cover transfer of a case pending enquiry under section 202 of the Code. 4. One may go with the argument of Mr. Akhtar in reading the words used in the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 202 of the Code if a transfer under section 192 of the Code is held impermissible after cognizance is taken by the Magistrate and the enquiry proceeds, Section 202 of the Code however, makes a particular reference to any Magistrate to whom the case is made over under section 192 of the Code. What may be warranted in the ends of justice should not be allowed to suffer on account of technicalities flowing from the language of the proviso under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am of the view that there is no error of law warranting interference with the order of the learned Magistrate to whom the case will transferred under section 192 of the Code by the Chief Judicial Magistrate following the order pined by the learned Sessions Judge under section 408 of the Code. No other contention has been raised. This application is, accordingly dismissed. 5. It has been brought to my notice that the petitioner no. 2 a woman his been alleged to have given a Farsa blow. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that her using a Farsa and acting in aggression in presence of her husband is improbable. I do not propose to go into this aspect of the matter at this stage. It shall be open to the petitioner no. 2 to press before the trial court this aspect of the case and seek discharge from the trial. The trial court shall also see that no unnecessary harassment is caused to the petitioner no. I do not propose to go into this aspect of the matter at this stage. It shall be open to the petitioner no. 2 to press before the trial court this aspect of the case and seek discharge from the trial. The trial court shall also see that no unnecessary harassment is caused to the petitioner no. 2 by her frequent appearance in the court and/or any other cause. 6. It shall be open to petitioner no. 2 to make an appropriate application for exemption from personal appearance in day to day trial. Application dismissed.