JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code with the prayer that the two cases lodged against the petitioners may be ordered to be tried by one court. 2. The facts of the case are that one Ram Karan was married to Smt. Surgyan in the year 1981. During the festival of Diwali, the mother of Smt. Surgyan brought her daughter to village Bhagpur in the absence of Ram Karan after assuring the brother of Ram Karan that she would send her back after the festival. Since his wife did not return, Ram Karan went to the house of his in-laws to bring back his wife Smt. Surgyan. When Ram Karan reached the village of his in-laws, he learnt about the marriage of Smt. Surgyan to one Roopa Ram resident of Korisina. Ram Karan alongwith the co-villagers went to the village of Roopa Ram to enquire about the matter. Roopa Ram told him that now Surgyan is his legally wedded wife. Thereupon, Ram Karan filed a compliant under section 494 I.P.C. in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sambar Lake against Roopa Ram and Smt. Surgyan. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 3.12.87. 3. thereafter, two reports were lodged, one by Roopa Ram and other by Smt. Surgyan. Roopa Ram lodged a report at Police Station, Sambar on 31.1.88 against some of the petitioners for offences under sections 147,148,149, 379, 366 and 323 I.P.C. Smt. Surgyan lodged a report at Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur on 2.2.88 under sections 147, 366, 376 and 379 I.P.C. In respect of the first report the police filed a challan after investigation and the case has been committed to the court of District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. In respect of the second report the case has been committed to the court of learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Jaipur. 4. The sum and substance of the allegations levelled against the petitioners is that the accused petitioners had kidnapped Smt. Surgyan from the house of Roopa Ram. She was kept in custody upto 2.2.88 in Bajaj Nagar. She escaped from the custody on 2.2.88 and lodged a report for offences including sections 376 and 366 Indian Penal Code. Thus, the allegation of kidnapping Smt. Surgyan and committing rape on her is the basis of story of the prosecution. She was kept in custody upto 2.2.88 in Bajaj Nagar. She escaped from the custody on 2.2.88 and lodged a report for offences including sections 376 and 366 Indian Penal Code. Thus, the allegation of kidnapping Smt. Surgyan and committing rape on her is the basis of story of the prosecution. The petitioners have claimed that the two cases in which they have been arrayed as accused, arise out of the same incident and the allegations contained in the two cases are inter-related. It is in the interest of justice that these two cases are tried by one court. 5. In support of his submission that the two cases should be tried by one court instead of two separate courts, Shri R. S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners, has placed reliance on the decisions of M.P. High Court in Dilip v. State of M.P., 1987 Cr.L.J. 212 . He argued that the trial of the petitioners in two separate courts will result in duality of the proceedings and will cause grave injustice to the petitioner. Shri Parihar, learned Public Prosecutor, fairly stated that the prosecution will have no objection if the two cases are tried in one court. The case involving kidnapping of Smt. Surgyan is pending trial in the court of District Judge, Jaipur District, whereas, the case involving allegation of kidnapping and rape with Smt. Surgyan is pending trial in the court of Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Jaipur. 6. I have looked into two first information reports and I find that although, the offences are said to have been committed at different places, but they form part of the same transaction. In the first palce, Smt. Surgyan is said to have been kidnapped and then she is said to have been kept in Bajaj Nagar Colony, Jaipur and subjected to rape. In Dilip v. State of M.P. (supra), the M. P. High Court has analysed the provisions of section 177(i), 184(a) and 220 (1) Cr. P. C. and observed : "Where offences of kidnapping and rape were committed at different places but formed part of one transaction, court competent to try offence of kidnapping could try both offences together, in view of Sections 184(a) and 220(1). P. C. and observed : "Where offences of kidnapping and rape were committed at different places but formed part of one transaction, court competent to try offence of kidnapping could try both offences together, in view of Sections 184(a) and 220(1). It could not be said that as accused was acquitted of offence of kidnapping trial court would be left with no jurisdiction to enter conviction for offence of rape in view of Section 177.S. 177 lays down that question of Court's territorial jurisdiction of trial of offences is ordinarily determined with reference to place where acts constituting alleged offences are committed. That jurisdiction is not ousted only because it is ultimately held that the acts do not in the eye of law constitute one or more of the offences. Then there being no failure of justice, the provision under Section 462 Cr.P. C. cures any error as to territorial jurisdiction." 7. Having regard to the aforesaid decisions I am of the opinion that the two cases which are pending trial before the Court District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Court Jaipur, should be tried by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in the interest of justice. 8. This petition is, therefore, allowed. It is ordered that the trial of the case arising out of F.I.R. No. 3/88, registered at Police Station, Sambar Lake, district Jaipur and trial of the case pending before the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Case No. 36/91), be held by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur simultaneously. It is ordered that the second case pending before the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Jaipur, be transferred to the court of District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur.Petition allowed. *******