JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The case of the petitioners in short is that non-petitioner No. 1 (complainant) filed a complaint against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 420 IPC read with 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 261 of 1881) for short "the Act" on the allegations inter-alia that the accused petitioner No. 2 Somnath Agarwal husband of petitioner No. 1 Smt. Gayatri came to his shop for purchase of handicrafts items on 7.6.1995 and made purchases to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- as against Bill which was prepared on the same day. The petitioners made the payment vide Account Payee Cheque No. 694661/dt. 20.6.1995 for Rs. 3300/- and vide Cheque No. 694653/dt. 12.6.1995 for Rs. 3000/- which was duly encashed while the first Cheque No. 694661 for Rs. 3300/- was dishonoured when presented by the complainant to his bank. The cheque was drawn on S.B.I. Bikaner & Jaipur Branch, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur bearing the signatures of accused-petitioner No. 1 Smt. Gayatri. The cheque was returned for the reasons of 'insufficient fund' on 27.6.1995. Thereafter, on 31.7.1995 on receipt of information from the accused, the complainant visited the house of accused persons at Jaipur and the accused petitioner issued another cheque in lieu of the earlier dishonoured cheque of Rs. 3300/- which he handed over personally to the complainant since in all bonafides he wanted to settle the dispute between the parties with regard to the amount of Rs. 3300/-. The complainant presented the complaint before the learned ACJM Beawar for taking cognizance against the accused for offence under Section 420 IPC read with Section 138 of the Act. The trial Court recorded the statement of non-petitioner No. 1 and took cognizance against the accused petitioner vide order dated 7.12.1995 in view of the presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque in compliance with the requirements of Section 139 of the Act for offence under Section 138 of the said Act but since no prima-facie case had been made out by the complainant for offence under Section 420 IPC, no cognizance for the said offence was consequently taken against the accused-petitioner, as a consequence' of which he stood absolved as regards the offence under Section 420 IPC. Thereafter, the matter has been pending in the trial court for the last about three years but the trial has not yet been commenced. It has been contended by Shri Ashwini Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing that the complainant-non-petitioner No. 1 with a view to cause undue harassment to the petitioner notwithstanding his bonafides to settle the outstanding dues also made a claim of Rs. 38,000/-which has been shown as outstanding against the accused-petitioners in Criminal Case No. 87/95 as a result of some breach which occurred during the course of the business dealings. This fact is borne out from para 7 of the said complaint dated 7.12.1995. In the foregoing paras of the said complaint, the trial Court did not find a prima-facie case to proceed against the accused-petitioner as regards the offence under Section 420 IPC but nevertheless took cognizance against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 in view of the fact that one of the cheques for Rs. 3300/- have been dishonoured which the accused-petitioner is ready and willing to pay and settle against the outstanding dues alongwith interest payable thereon at the prevalent rate of interest of any Nationalised Bank to the complainant. 2. As regards the amount of Rs. 38,000/- indicated in the complainant, as a matter of fact, this is basically a civil liability which has to be established on the basis of accrual of cause of action for which the appropriate forum is the Civil Court for release of the said amount on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties in a suit which I am informed has not been filed so far. The question which has to be examined by the trial court is as to what outstanding amount is actually due from the accused which has been established only as regards the amount actually due from accused to the complainant as regards the dishonoured cheque which he had issued for the sum of Rs. 3300/- which I am informed by the learned counsel during the course of hearing that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay at the prevalent rate of bank. 3. 3300/- which I am informed by the learned counsel during the course of hearing that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay at the prevalent rate of bank. 3. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner No. 1 is a lady who has travelled on many occasions from Jaipur to Beawar in the past with no results so far and the proceedings have not yet been culminated to their logical conclusion, I deem It appropriate to direct that Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-ACJM Beawar to expedite the hearing of the proceedings pending before the said Court while the request of the petitioner for transfer of proceedings pending before the said Court to another Court as per the provisions of Section 401 Cr.P.C. is declined. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners that the accused is ready and willing to settle the outstanding dues alongwith interest at the prevalent rate of interest of the bank on the next date of hearing of the matter fixed before the trial Court i.e. on 9.4.1999. In case the outstanding amount is deposited by the accused with the said Court then, no further action need by taken against the petitioners and the proceedings be treated as closed. As regards the outstanding liability of the petitioner towards the complainant with regard to any further amount which is due to the latter which is not subject matter of the aforesaid proceedings and for which the alternative remedy of filing the civil suit is available to the aggrieved party i.e. the non-petitioner No. 1 Shanker Lal, it is directed that in case he is so advised, he may file the same before-appropriate forum in accordance with law. 4. With the above observations, the transfer petition is disposed of.Petition Disposed of as Above. *******