R. N. RAY, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants at length. Persued the application along with its annexures. 2. It has been contended that petitioner No. 1 is a practising advocate in Delhi High Court and Supreme Court of India and the sister of petitioner No. 1 Ms. Purnima Agarwal is also practising advo cate of Delhi High Court. The father of petitioner No. 1, Er. R. K. Agarwal is in Government service and at present he is functioning as Superintending Engineer, U. P. Electricity Board and is a public servant under the definition of Indian Penal Code. The mother of petitioner No. 1, Smt. Savitri Devi Agarwal is a chronic heart patient and is under the treatment of Escorts Heart In stitute, New Delhi. It has been contended that respondent No. 2, Smt. Priti Agarwal took her belongings went to her parents house with two months pregnancy. 3. It has been contended that O. P. No. 2 made an F. I. R. No. 210 dated 19-9-96 which was registered at Kotwali Roorkee under Section 498-A/323, I. P. C. and Sec tion 3/4, D. P. Act Zerox copy of the injury of O. P. No. 2 has been annexed with this ap plication under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 4. The whole contention of the ap plicants petitioners is that just to pressurise them for undue actions as desired by the opposite parties. O. P. No. 2 lodged the E I. R. , though, in fact, there was no torture either mental or physical to the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2, Smt. Priti Agarwal was although treated very af fectionately with warmness by the petitioner No. 1. The family members of opposite party No. 2 influenced her to take the recourse of lodging the E I. R. on con cocted story on the ground that the alleged incident took place within the district of Ghaziabad. However, in view of the provisions of Sections 173 and 177, Cr. P. C. the matter should be tried at Ghaziabad. It has also been contended that I. O. Roorkee should not be allowed to make investigation as the petitioners apprehend that investiga tion may not be fair and there could not be any reason to believe that police officers at Ghaziabad are incompetent biased to O. P. No. 2. 5. P. C. the matter should be tried at Ghaziabad. It has also been contended that I. O. Roorkee should not be allowed to make investigation as the petitioners apprehend that investiga tion may not be fair and there could not be any reason to believe that police officers at Ghaziabad are incompetent biased to O. P. No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 filed a counter-affidavit and sub mitted that O. P. No. 2 never conceived or there was no occasion for illegal termina tion of pregnancy. She was ill-treated and tortured by the petitioner No. 1 and his family members and she was assaulted physically and turned out from her husbands place and the allegations made in the E I. R. are true and the State Govern ment has every authority to get the matter investigated by any police officer under the State Governments control. 6. Learned A. G. A drew my attention to the counter-affidavit filed by Ram Khilari Sharma, the Officer posted at P. S. Roorkee, District Hardwar and submitted that the trial should be held at Ghaziabad in view of the provisions of Sections 173 & 177, Cr. P. C. but State Government is competent enough to get the matter investigated by any Officer under the control of the Govern ment of U. P. and the objection regarding the legality of investigation made by the Officer of Roorkee is not maintainable in law. 7. Considering the submissions and also perusing the decisions referred to by the learned advocates for the petitioners, it is held that unless case is transferred from one district to another under Section 407, Cr. P. C. by the Honble High Court or by Honble Supreme Court under Section 406, Cr. P. C. the case ought to be tried at Ghaziabad. It is also held that the State Government has the power to get the inves tigation made by any officer under the con trol of the State Government. If the Government thinks that the matter may be investigated by the C. B. , C. I. D. , then the Government may take appropriate steps for the same. Here no special reason has been given by the State Government as to why this matter is being enquired by the police officer at Roorkee. If the Government thinks that the matter may be investigated by the C. B. , C. I. D. , then the Government may take appropriate steps for the same. Here no special reason has been given by the State Government as to why this matter is being enquired by the police officer at Roorkee. In the circumstances, this application stands allowed in part and case No. 210/96, under Section 498- A/323, I. P. C. and 3/4, D. P. Act, P. S. Kotwali, Roorkee, Hardwar gets transferred to the court of learned C. J. M. , Ghaziabad and the records of the case should be transferred to the court of C. J. M. , Ghaziabad and if the applicants surrender before the learned court below at Ghaziabad in connection with the above case and pray for bail, then in that event that should be considered and disposed of very expeditiously according to law. 8. Be it noted that this court is not making any observation regarding the merit of the case but it is made clear that the court concerned is to provide opportunity to the applicants of being heard if they pray for bail. 9. It is further ordered that the arrest of the applicants shall remain stayed till 30-3-97 but they must be available to the I. O. concerned for interrogation in connection with the above case. 10. A copy of this order be made avail able to the learned counsel for the ap plicants against payments of usual charges within two days. 11. Acopy of this order be sent down to the D. I. G. of police concerned to which Roorkee is situated with a direction to en sure fair investigation in the case. 12. A copy of this order be also sent to the D. I. G. of the Range to which district Ghaziabad appertains for necessary action, if any. 13. Thus, this application under Sec tion 482, Cr. P. C. stands finally disposed of. Petition partly allowed. .