Judgment A. S. GODARA, J. ( 1 ) THIS transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 407, Cr. P. C. pleading that Smt. Raka Srivastava, non-petitioner No. 2, filed a complaint under Section 494, I. P. C. agianst the petitioner as well as Smt. Asha Srivastava, non-petitioner No. 1, and Bhairon Prasad, non-petitioner No. 4 etc. in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (J. D.) and Judicial Magistrate No. 4 Jodhpur, titled as Smt. Raka Srivastava v. Bhagwan Swaroop and 6 others and registered vide S. No. 142/92. It was alleged by the complainant Smt. Raka Srivastava that the accused-petitioner during the subsistence of her marriage with the present petitioner, with the aid and abetment of the co-accused persons knowing that the petitioner was already validly married with the complainant, again married with Smt. Asha Srivastava. After due enquiry, the learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 494, I. P. C. against the accused-persons including Smt. Asha Srivastava and the accused persons are facing trial before the same Court. ( 2 ) BHAIRON Prasad, non-petitioner No. 4 after giving his appearance in the aforesaid case, lodged an FIR through the S. P. Jaipur with the Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur on 21-6-85 that Bhagwan Chand who was an old acquaint of the complainant, approached him representing that one Triveni Prasad Srivastava was an unmarried boy working in the Labour Court at Jodhpur and, as a result, the complainant came to Jodhpur and he was shown the present-petitioner Bhagwan Swaroop Srivastava representing that he was the same Triveni Prasad, being unmarried, who was to be married. Accordingly, the complainant (Bhairon Prasad) celebrated marriage of his daughter Smt. Asha Srivastava with the present petitioner. However, subsequently it turned out that he was not person of the name of Triveni Prasad and it was the present petitioner whose name was Bhawan Swaroop Srivastava and he was already previously married with non-petitioner Smt. Raka Srivastava and out of their wedlock two children were born who were alive. So an FIR under Sections 420 and 495, I. P. C. was registered at the Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur on 21-6-85 itself and, after due investigation, the petitioner was challaned under Section 420, I. P. C. only in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur whereat the same case is as yet pending. So an FIR under Sections 420 and 495, I. P. C. was registered at the Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur on 21-6-85 itself and, after due investigation, the petitioner was challaned under Section 420, I. P. C. only in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur whereat the same case is as yet pending. It is further contended that the trial of this case has been completed and the case is being posted for final arguments time and again. ( 3 ) SMT. Asha Devi, non-petitioner No. 1 also lodged a complaint under Sections 494 and 495 read with Sections 114 and 109, I. P. C. against the present petitioner Bhawan Swaroop and five others in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District and, accordingly, after due enquiry, cognizance of offence under Section 495, I. P. C. was taken against the accused-persons and the same is presently pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur Besides, it is also alleged that the non-petitioner Smt. Asha Srivastava, thereafter, filed a complaint in the Family Court, Jaipur and she succeeded in obtaining decree of nullity of marriage with the petitioner. ( 4 ) AS a result, it has been alleged that there are allegations that he previously married with Smt. Raka Srivastava, and, thereafter during the subsistence of marriage with Smt. Raka Srivastava he again, married with Smt. Asha Srivastava and, as a result, he is being prosecuted by Smt. Raka Srivastava, Smt. Asha Srivastava as well as Bhairon Prasad who is father of Smt. Asha Srivastava, in different Courts at Jaipur as well as Jodhpur. ( 5 ) IT is further alleged that the allegations and nature of offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in all the different criminal cases pending in two different Courts at Jaipur and Jodhpur are almost same and the nature of the evidence of the parties are almost same. Besides, it is also alleged that since all the three cases so pending in different Courts have arisen as a result of alleged second marriage of the present petitioner with Smt. Asha Srivastava and the same having been declared null and void. Besides, it is also alleged that since all the three cases so pending in different Courts have arisen as a result of alleged second marriage of the present petitioner with Smt. Asha Srivastava and the same having been declared null and void. It is just and fair that all these three cases be tried and disposed of simultaneously by one and same Court so that the petitioner might not suffer and also be subjected to punishment for the same offence for more than once. Accordingly, it has been requested that both the aforesaid cases lodged by Smt. Asha Srivastava as well as her father Bhairon Prasad pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (J. D.) cum Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur District be withdrawn from there and further be transferred to the Court of Addl. Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur whereat the complaint filed by Smt. Raka Srivastava is also pending. ( 6 ) THIS has been seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant side. It has been contended that all these three cases, have arisen on different dates and at different places and their cause of action is different. Besides. Smt. Raka Srivastava is residing at Jodhpur and her case is pending since 1985. Besides, the case registered on the complaint of Bhairon Prasad by the Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur, and after investigation, the same having been filed in the Court and, as represented by the petitioner also, being presently pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur District and the trial of the same having been completed, is pending its final disposal to which the complainant is resisting. Besides, Smt. Asha Srivastava, who is daughter of Bhairon Prasad, also filed the complaint against the present petitioner which is also so pending in the same Court at Jaipur. Therefore, looking to the convenience of the parties as well as witnesses and the counsel engaged by the parties at Jaipur, there is no justification for transfer of both the cases pending at Jaipur. Similarly, since Smt. Raka Srivastava is resident of Jodhpur and her case is, pending at Jodhpur since long and she has suffered a lot by way of prosecuting her case against the petitioner at Jodhpur by engaging counsel and also procuring witnesses in support of her case. Similarly, since Smt. Raka Srivastava is resident of Jodhpur and her case is, pending at Jodhpur since long and she has suffered a lot by way of prosecuting her case against the petitioner at Jodhpur by engaging counsel and also procuring witnesses in support of her case. As a result, at present, there is no material nor there is any stage to conclude that cause of the action of the three cases so pending against the petitioner is one and same and that the same arose at one place at either Jaipur or Jodhpur and, therefore, it is never in the interest of justice nor it is just that all these cases be transferred to one and same Court. and the same be tried and disposed of simultaneously. ( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the rival contentions advanced in favour of and against the petition under consideration. ( 8 ) HAVING given a considerate thought to the same, as regards the case filed by Smt. Raka Srivastava against the present petitioner and others at Jodhpur, there is absolutely no justification for transferring the same to any Court at Jaipur. This case is pending against the petitioner since 16-6-85 and, therefore, it will be quite inconvenient to the complainant Smt. Raka Srivastava that she should be required to go to Jaipur and prosecute her case at Jaipur. at such a balated stage. As is expected, since the petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. by the present petitioner against the proceedings pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur against the petitioner and others was also dismissed by this Court on 8-4-96 and, therefore, it is neither in the interest of the parties nor in the interest of justice to transfer the case of Smt. Raka Srivastava pending in the subordinate Court at Jodhpur and, as a result, the prayer of the present petitioner cannot be acceded to regarding transfer of this case from Jodhpur to Jaipur. ( 9 ) AS regards, the cases so pending in the Court of Addl. ( 9 ) AS regards, the cases so pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur District, since the case registered on the complaint of Bhairon Prasad-non-petitioner No. 4 is at the verge of final hearing and disposal and, besides, another case filed by Smt. Asha Srivastava and so pending in the same Court, is yet to reach the stage of final hearing and disposal and both the complainants are residents of Jaipur and their cases are so pending at Jaipur since long and, therefore, it will be quite inconvenient and expensive as well for both these non-petitioners in case both these cases are transferred from Jaipur to Jodhpur. As a result, since there is no allegation that a fair and impartial enquiry or trial cannot be held in any Court at Jaipur and there is no other valid ground, for withdrawing both the cases pending with the subordinate Court of Jaipur District Judgeship and thereafter transferring the same to any subordinate Court at Jodhpur and, therefore, the prayer of the present petitioner to transfer both the cases of Jaipur District to any Court at Jodhpur is completely devoid of any merit and in case this prayer of the present petitioner is acceded to, it will amount to a gross abuse of process of Court and law. Besides, it will occasion a failure of justice in case both these cases are withdrawn from Jaipur Court and further transferred to the Court at Jodhpur. However, since both these cases filed by Smt. Asha Srivastava as well as her father Bhairon Prasad are pending in one and the same Court of Addl. Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur District and one of those cases is pending for final hearing and disposal while another case is yet pending trial, the latter case is likely to take some time and, therefore, it is directed that the learned trial Magistrate shall accord top priority to the trial of the latter case and after completion of the evidence, he shall hear final arguments in both the cases simultaneously and thereafter, without loss of time, he shall further proceed to finally dispose of both the cases simultaneously. Whatever legal objections are there, the present petitioner is at liberty to raise those objections before the trial Magistrate regarding maintainability or otherwise of either case, against him as well as his co-accused persons. ( 10 ) WITH the aforesaid observations, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. The Presiding Officers of both the Courts at Jaipur as well as Jodhpur are hereby directed that, on no grounds, unnecessary and avoidable adjournments shall be granted to the petitioner or his alleged co-accomplices to mitigate and check further delay in early disposal of the cases. ( 11 ) THE transfer petition is disposed of accordingly. Let a copy of this order be sent to both the Courts for information and action accordingly. Order accordingly.