Judgment DALIP SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a transfer petition by the applicant who is residing at bhopal in M. P. and has stated in para No. 3 that when the petitioner-applicant appeared before the court at Jaipur, the complainant who was at that time practising as an Advocate at jaipur with the assistance of some uknown persons attacked the petitioner-applicant and it has become difficult for the petitioner-applicant in these circumstances to appear before the court at Jaipur where the complainant has sufficient influence and that the petitioner is apprehending that in these circumstances, he would not get fair and impartial trial as he may not even get proper assistance of an Advocate at Jaipur. ( 2 ) IT has also been averred in the transfer application that the respondent has lodged false complaints with regard to the alleged incident of the court in Jaipur with a view to get the bail granted to the applicant cancelled under Section 437 (5) Cr. P. C. by using such tactics. Further averments have also been made in para No. 5 of the petition which may not be necessary to incorporate herein. The sum and substance of the allegations contained in the petition is that the petitioner apprehends that he may not get a fair trial at Jaipur. ( 3 ) OPPOSING the aforesaid application, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the allegations are all false. In fact the complainant had lodged an FIR against the petitioner, as has been mentioned in the reply and that it is the complainant who has been creating the problems when she comes to appear at the time of hearing in the case. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the complainant is no more practising in the court at Jaipur and now she has shifted her place of residence to indore in M. P. after her re-marriage. ( 5 ) STRICTLY speaking, it may or may not be a case specifically covered by Section 407 cr. P. C. Both the parties are residing at Bhopal and the complainant, as per the statement of the learned counsel for the complainant, is presently residing at Indore (M. P. ). It has also been submitted that the complainant-wife after the dissolution of marriage has also re-married. ( 6 ) IN the facts of circumstances, therefore,. . . . . P. C. Both the parties are residing at Bhopal and the complainant, as per the statement of the learned counsel for the complainant, is presently residing at Indore (M. P. ). It has also been submitted that the complainant-wife after the dissolution of marriage has also re-married. ( 6 ) IN the facts of circumstances, therefore,. . . . . . . . . . . . . petitioner-applicant on the basis of the averments made in the paras No. 3 to 5 of the petitioner apprehends that he may not get a fair trial at Jaipur, without going into the details of those allegations or making any comment or giving a finding on the correctness of the same, with a view to secure the ends of justice, it is hereby directed that the proceedings of case no. 103/2005 (State of Rajasthan v. Shyam maheshwari and Others) pending before the additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, jaipur City, Jaipur shall be transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction at Kota. The learned district and Sessions Judge, Kota is directed to assign the case to any of the courts of competent jurisdiction at Kota. The record of the case be sent by the concerned court to the court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kota for the aforesaid purpose. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, kota on 12th March, 2007. ( 7 ) THIS transfer application accordingly stands disposed of. The learned trial court at jaipur shall send the record by Special Messenger. Petition disposed of. .