JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Section 407 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of Criminal Case No. 1591/1986 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena, from that Court to some other Court outside Morena district ( 2. ) THE petitioners are being prosecuted by the State for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of petitioner No. 2; petitioner No. 3 is mother and petitioner No. 4 is brother of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 4 was married to one lakshmi, who was resident of Morena. The petitioners are residents of Gwalior. Prosecution case is that nine years after the marriage of Lakshmi with petitioner No. 4, she was ill-treated and, in spite of heavy dowry being paid to the petitioners further demands were put by them for bringing motor-cycle in the family. The prosecution case further alleges that Lakshmi was being-ill-treated in the family by all the petitioners and that is why she left her marital home and now resides at her fathers place. The prosecution case further proceeds that the petitioners after entering into a criminal conspiracy, subjected Lakshmi to cruelty, snatched her stridhan and turned her out of the house. Lakshmi Devi Rathore filed a complaint in writing before City Inspector of police, Morena, on 23-2-1986 and upon that report, the Police took cognizance and registered crime No. 65/1986. ( 3. ) THE petitioners contend that Lakshmi Devi left her marital home voluntarily and, after deserting her husband petitioner No. 4, Arun Pratap Singh, mysteriously disappeared. Upon this, the petitioners not only filed a report in the police but also advertised in newspapers and requested her to return to her husbands family. They further contend that Lakshmi Devi after deserting her marital home connived with her brother Keshav Singh, Advocate, Morena, and filed this false report against them. They further contend that Keshav Singh, Advocate, is the kingpin of the whole drama, and his sole intention is that when they reach Morena for appearing in the case as accused they be harassed; they apprehend danger to their life at the hands of said Keshav Singh, advocate, Morena, and his Goondas. They further contend that Keshav Singh, Advocate, is the kingpin of the whole drama, and his sole intention is that when they reach Morena for appearing in the case as accused they be harassed; they apprehend danger to their life at the hands of said Keshav Singh, advocate, Morena, and his Goondas. They further contend in the petition that Keshav singh is terrorising the petitioners and their relations, who come for their aid to provide company and protection. Thus, they conclude in the petition that the petitioners are not likely to get justice at Morena and in a tumultuous and terror-stricken atmosphere they will not be able to defend themselves in the alleged crime. In support of their contention they have filed affidavits of Narayan Singh and Ramchandra Singh Tomar, Advocate, morena, and certain documents. ( 4. ) THE State, on notice, filed return refuting all the allegations contained in the petition for transfer of the case. Their stand is that the petitioners are being aided and assisted in their defence by lawyers of Morena and none has refused to defend them. They further contend that no report was lodged in the police station with regard to any alleged act on the part of said Keshav Singh, Advocate, and in support of their contentions they have filed the affidavit of Bhure Singh Kushwah, City Inspector of police. Bhure Singh Kushwah has deposed on oath that none of the petitioners or their party on 15-12-1986 approached the police for filing any report against the act or conduct of Keshav Singh, Advocate. They further contend that full protection shall be given to the petitioners whenever they appear to stand their trial at Morena. The State along with the return has also filed photostat copies of Khatoni, whereby they want to prove that petitioner Narayan Singh holds immoveable property in Morena district and is not an unknown person at Morena. They have also filed another affidavit of ramchandra Singh Tomar, Advocate, Morena dated 6-2-1987. Though this very person has sworn an affidavit on 4-2-1987 that he is being terrorised by Keshav Singh Rathore, advocate, while supporting the case of the State, Ramchandra Singh Tomar, Advocate, has sworn the affidavit on 6-2-1987 therein contending that he was never terrorised by keshav Singh Rathore, Advocate and that he has refused to defend the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of his fees, etc. , etc. , etc. ( 5. ) THE provisions of Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code, are being reporduced here for convenience :- "407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals ;- (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court - (a)that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal court subordinate thereto, or (b)that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or (c)that an order under this section is required by any provision of this code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, *** **** **** ***** *****" sub-clause (c) of section 407 (1) provides that a case can be transferred, if it is expedient for the ends of justice. The case of the petitioners does not fall either in the sub-clause. (a) or sub-clause (b), and. it can only be said to fall in the latter part of clause (c ). It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether it would be expedient for the ends of justice to transfer the case from Morena to any other Court outside Morena district or not. It has to be observed that the trial before the Court, which has territorial jurisdiction to try the case, should normally be allowed to go on, unless and until it is shown that, in the interest of justice, it is expedient to transfer the case from that Court. Transfer of a case is un exception to this general rule. It has not been alleged by the petitioners that they will not get a fair or impartial inquiry or trial; that some question of law of unusual importance is likely to arise, or it would be of general convenience of the parties or the witnesses to transfer the case. The case of the petitioners is that due to Keshav Singh, advocate, Morena, they are being terrorised by the Police, who are under the influence of said Keshav Singh. Bhure Singh Kushwah, City Inspector of Police, Morena, has contended in his affidavit that full protection shall be given to the petitioners whenever they visit Morena for their trial. The contradictory affidavit filed by Ramchandra Singh, advocate, cannot, therefore, be relied upon. Bhure Singh Kushwah, City Inspector of Police, Morena, has contended in his affidavit that full protection shall be given to the petitioners whenever they visit Morena for their trial. The contradictory affidavit filed by Ramchandra Singh, advocate, cannot, therefore, be relied upon. It is also not the case of the petitioners that except Ramchandra Singh Tomar, Advocate, other competent lawyers at Morena are not available to them or that they have refused to accept their brief. It has to be observed that the conduct of Keshav Singh. Advocate, seems to me, in the facts ami circumstances of the case, is not proper, befitting to an advocate. If the allegations contained in the petition are true, and he in any manner puts any hindrance in the smooth working of the trial or in any way interferes with the due process of law, then his conduct clearly comes within the orbit of professional misconduct and action can be taken by the Bar Council against him. The grounds disclosed by the petitioners in the petition are not of such a nature which may be just grounds for transfer of the case from one Court to another, and it also does not appear to be expedient, in the interest of justice, to transfer the case. Shri Kr L. Mangal, learned counsel for the petitioners, has drawn my attention to Sesamma Phillip (AIR 1973 S. C. 875 ). In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Supreme Court directed transfer of the case, because it had no doubt at all that the petitioner in that case was not unreasonably afraid to go to durg, where non-petitioner Phillip resided. The material present in that ease was sufficient to warrant transfer. Similarly, in Hazara Singh Gill (AIR 1965 S. C. 720), it was held that as serious allegations were made against the Government of Punjab, of harassment of the petitioner by launching several prosecutions, which were highly politically motivated, their Lordships were pleased to transfer the case outside Punjab. Plethora of judgments, which were brought to my notice at the Bar by Shri K. L. Mangal, learned counsel for the petitioners, was also perused by me, but in those cases there were sufficient materials on record to direct transfer, because it was expeditious in the ends of justice. Plethora of judgments, which were brought to my notice at the Bar by Shri K. L. Mangal, learned counsel for the petitioners, was also perused by me, but in those cases there were sufficient materials on record to direct transfer, because it was expeditious in the ends of justice. The present petition contains serious allegations, but the truthfulness of those allegations cannot be ascertained, because they may be true or they may also be wild and reckless. It has also to be kept in view that the prosecution has been launched by the police and not by a private party. Thus an independent agency of the State is the prosecutor against whom no allegations have been made by the petitioners. Whatever allegations made in the petition have been denied on oath by the state and its officers through affidavits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be expedient for the ends of justice to transfer the case from Morena to any other Court outside the district, but keeping in view the serious allegations made in the petition, it would be desirable that the trial of the petitioners does not take place in a surcharged atmosphere. Therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena, is directed to see that within the Court no such atmosphere is created, which may cause prejudice to the accused persons in their defence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is further directed to keep sufficient police force present in the court so that no physical harm is caused to the petitioners by Arun Pratap Singhs wifes brother, Keshav Singh, advocate. Keshav Singh, Advocate, should not be permitted to remain present in the court when the case is taken up. ( 6. ) IT is further directed that the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, morena, shall take special precautions that whenever the petitioners visit Morena for their trial, they are in no way harassed by Keshav Singh, Advocate, Morena, or the local police, which is alleged to be under the influence of that Advocate. Sufficient police force should be ordered to be present by the district authorities when the case is going on, and every step under law should be taken to protect the person, property and reputation of the petitioners when they visit for standing their trial in the Court at morena. Sufficient police force should be ordered to be present by the district authorities when the case is going on, and every step under law should be taken to protect the person, property and reputation of the petitioners when they visit for standing their trial in the Court at morena. With these directions the petition praying for transfer of the case is dismissed, as it has no merit. Petition dismissed.