JUDGMENT V.S. Kokje, J. 1. This is an application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') for transfer of M. Cr. C. No. 1/91 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Petlawad, Dist: Jhabua to any other Court outside the Dist. Jhabua. 2. Shri N.S. Purohit, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings have been malafide started in the Court of J.M.F.C. Petlawad. It is submitted that the non-applicant No. 1. is the wife of the applicant, lodged a complaint against the applicant Under Section 498A IPC. A case was registered on this complaint in Ratlam. In that case applicant, his father and brothers were arrested and were enlarged on bail by the C.J.M. Ratlam and the mother and sister of the applicant had to obtain an anticipatory bail. Shri Purohit further submits that the applicant is engaged in a business at Bombay and as there was no accommodation for him to live with his wife in Bombay, they were residing at Ratalm. Shri Purohit, therefore, submits that it would be convenient for both the parties to attend the case at Ratlam and it is only to inconvenient applicant, that the non-applicant has filed the case in the Court of J.M.F.C. Petlawad. It is further submitted that the parents of the non-applicant No. 1 are resourceful and influential persons at Petlawad and, therefore, no local Advocate was available to the petitioner at Petlawad. On this ground the transfer of the case was sought in the interest of justice a Court outside Jhabua District. 3. Shri Pawecha, learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicants submits that there is no case initiated by the N.As. Which is going on in Ratlam. However, it is admitted that at the instance of the non-applicant No. 1 a case has been registered Under Sectionecs. 313 and 498-A IPC, as also Under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prevention Act which is going on in the Ratlam Court. It is further submitted by the N.A.s that the N.A. No. 1 had till now no occasion to go to Ratlam for that case. It is also submitted on behalf of the N.As. that this is a second application on the same grounds as were raised in M.Cr. C. No. 303/91, which was rejected by this Court on 9.5.91. According to Shri Pawecha, the only new ground is non-availabilty of a lawyer at Petlawad. It is also submitted on behalf of the N.As. that this is a second application on the same grounds as were raised in M.Cr. C. No. 303/91, which was rejected by this Court on 9.5.91. According to Shri Pawecha, the only new ground is non-availabilty of a lawyer at Petlawad. As regards this, his submission is that firstly this allegation is totally false because in the earlier application no such point was raised. Secondly he has filed affidavit of the President of Petlawad Bar Association who has stated in his affidavit that there are total 14 Members in the Bar at Petlawad, out of them the President of the Bar Association had contacted 6 lawyers who had told him that they were never contacted by anyone to appear for the applicant. It has also been stated in the affidavit that the Non-applicant No. l's uncle Shri V.A. Katkani is not practicising in Petlawad but is practicising in Ratlam for last 18 years. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel after having perused the record I find that the only ground which can be considered in this application is that of no lawyer being available at Petlawad to plead the case of the applicant. All these grounds were or should have been pressed at the time of arguments in the earlier transfer application. As regards non-availability of lawyers also it appears that actually no sincere attempt was ever made to engage a Counsel from Petlawad. In any case Petlawad is not at a very long distance from Ratlam and if the applicant so chooses he can take a lawyer from Ratlam to Petlawad to plead his case if he has no faith in lawyers at Petlawad. The transfer application has, therefore, no force and it is accordingly dismissed.