Judgment : K. M. THAKER, J. – In present petition under Sec. 407 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the accused has prayed that the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 458 of 2009 (wherein the petitioner is an accused) under Sec. 499 read with Sec. 500 of I.P.C. pending against him at Jam-Khambhaliya may be transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Gandhidham. The petitioner has prayed, inter alia that : "12b. Your Lordships be pleased to order that the complaint being Criminal Case No. 458 of 2009 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C., Khambhaliya for the alleged offence under Sec. 500 of the I.P. Code be transferred to the Court of learned J.M.F. C., Gandhidham." 2. The petitioner has, inter alia claimed that the complainant (i.e. present respondent No.2) is working as Executive Engineer at Vadinar Port Oil Terminal and that he is working under Kandla Port Trust. 2.1. It is also mentioned that on account of publication of certain news article, which was published on 26-4-2009, in a daily newspaper, the complainant felt aggrieved because, the said article and details mentioned therein, according to the complainant, are defamatory and libelous. 2.2. It appears that the complainant, thereafter, filed the complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jam-Khambhaliya, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 458 of 2009. 2.3. The petitioner has claimed that certain other officer also found the said article and its publication libelous and defamatory and on account of the said article, the said other officer has also lodged a complaint against the present petitioner at Gandhidham, which is registered as Criminal Case No. 2034 of 2009. 2.4. The aforesaid two cases have been lodged against the petitioner somewhere in 2009 and now after three years, the petitioner has taken out present petition under Sec. 407 of the Code seeking transfer of the proceedings at Gandhidham from Jam-Khambhaliya. 2.5. In the interregnum, the petitioner appears to have preferred certain applications, i.e. application for bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jam-Khambhaliya and application seeking quashment of proceedings. 2.6. While opposing present petition, respondent No.2, i.e. original complainant has filed an affidavit stating, inter alia, the details regarding the applications filed by present petitioner. 2.7. 2.5. In the interregnum, the petitioner appears to have preferred certain applications, i.e. application for bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jam-Khambhaliya and application seeking quashment of proceedings. 2.6. While opposing present petition, respondent No.2, i.e. original complainant has filed an affidavit stating, inter alia, the details regarding the applications filed by present petitioner. 2.7. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner's attempts are to delay the proceedings related to the above-mentioned two cases filed under Sec. 500 of Indian Penal Code. 2.8. In his affidavit, respondent No.2, i.e. original complainant has stated, inter alia, that : "2. It is respectfully submitted that present applicant has previously challenged the legality and validity of the complaint registered by me before the Jam-Khambhaliya Court, which is not entertained by this Hon'ble Court. It is after the rejection of such quashing petition that the present application is filed seeking to have the present proceedings transferred to the Court of learned J.M.F.C. at Gandhidham. 3. I file the present Affidavit in order to appraise the Hon'ble Court to the events that have occurred after the passing of order dated 13-4-2012 by this Hon'b'le Court in the petition. I respectfully say and submit that this Hon'ble Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave) was persuaded to pass interim order in the present proceedings observing 'ad-interim relief to the extent that proceedings pending at the Gandhidham Court, Kutchh shall remain stayed. However, the proceedings at the Court of Jam-Khambhaliya are not stayed at all. Stand over to 20-6-2012. The aforesaid interim relief granted by this Hon'ble Court, though on persuasion of the applicant himself, was subjected to challenge by the applicant before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. ........ of 2012, which is not entertained, vide an order dated......... 4. The aforesaid orders of the Hon'ble Court kindly be viewed along with repeated efforts made by the complainant to have the proceedings before the learned J.M.F.C., Jam-Khambhaliya Court, though were clarified under the order dated 13-4-2012, not proceeded with and delayed. The copies of the application seeking adjournment filed by the applicant before the learned J.M.F.C. Jam-Khambhaliya are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-I (Colly) to the present affidavit-in-reply. 5. Another Application at Exh. The copies of the application seeking adjournment filed by the applicant before the learned J.M.F.C. Jam-Khambhaliya are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-I (Colly) to the present affidavit-in-reply. 5. Another Application at Exh. 73 was filed by the applicant herein before the learned J.M.F.C. Jam-Khambhaliya, thereby leveling baseless and irresponsible allegations, with intent to further delay the proceedings and overreach the directions made by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 13-4-2012 in the present petition. A copy of the Application Exh. 73 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-II to this affidavit-in-reply. The said application was not entertained, which was subjected to petition before this Hon'ble Court registered as Misc. Criminal Application No.12588 of 2012. Though, the aforesaid petition was listed before this Hon'ble Court for number of occasions, however, as it appears, no notice or directions were issued by this Hon'ble Court. In spite of the aforesaid position, an application was made by the applicant herein at Exh. 92. A copy of the Application No. 92 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-III to this affidavit-in-reply. 6. In spite of the above-referred efforts, since the adjournments were mala fide sought with intent to delay and frustrate the pending trial, therefore, the respondent herein to objected to the grant of such adjournments, which in respectful submission, were rightly considered by the learned J.M.F.C. Jam-Khambhaliya and thereby would reject such adjournment. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. M. B. Sardar, a Senior practicing lawyer at Bhuj would file his appearance as lawyer to represent the applicant herein-accused therein on 31-10-2012 along with application at Exh. 95, seeking such permission. With filing of such application on the record of the trial, learned J.M.F.C. Jam-Khambhaliya would pass an order, inter alia, observing 'the matter shall get transfer, as I have been coming from Bhuj Bar'. Upon passing of such order, the papers were forwarded to the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, who would called for records and proceedings of the Case No. 458 of 2009, vide order dated 6-12-2012. The orders to be passed by the learned Sessions Court for allotment of the matter, are awaited and it is on such that the matter would be placed before the concerned Court for further trial. " 3. I have heard Mr. Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. The orders to be passed by the learned Sessions Court for allotment of the matter, are awaited and it is on such that the matter would be placed before the concerned Court for further trial. " 3. I have heard Mr. Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Vyas, learned Advocate for the respondent at length and I have also considered the material on record. 4. In support of the relief prayed for in the present petition, learned Advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the petitioner submitted that both complaints have been filed with reference to the same article. If one case is tried earlier, then petitioner's defence would be disclosed, which would adversely affect the petitioner in second case. The petitioner would be put to face difficulty in attending two Courts and any prejudice will not be caused to the complainant if the relief prayed for in the present petition is granted. He also submitted that the respondent is employed in Kandla Port Trust and its office is at Gandhidham, and therefore, the respondent cannot have objection against petitioner's request. Mr. Dave, learned Advocate for petitioner also submitted that both cases may be tried by one Court at Gandhidham where the petitioner (i.e. the accused) stays. Learned Advocate for the petitioner admitted that the petition preferred with a request to quash the proceedings has been disposed of as withdrawn. The learned Counsel for petitioner also submitted that against certain conditions prescribed (while issuing notice and granting ad-interim relief) by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave) in this petition, the petitioner had approached Hon'ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which has also been withdrawn by him. 5. Mr. Vyas, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 submitted that this petition is preferred with ill-intention of delaying the proceedings before trial Court and that there is no reason or justification to entertain the petition. Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner is not justified in claiming that any difficulty or prejudice will not be caused to anyone, including the witnesses, if the proceedings at Jam-Khambhaliya are transferred to Gandhidham. Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner is not justified in claiming that any difficulty or prejudice will not be caused to anyone, including the witnesses, if the proceedings at Jam-Khambhaliya are transferred to Gandhidham. He submitted that the witnesses who are to be examined in the proceedings at Jam-Khambhaliya, will have to then travel from Jam-Khambhaliya to Gandhidham and in that event, it may not be convenient for the witnesses to travel upto Gandhidham, and therefore, either delay may be caused or the complainant's case may be adversely affected. Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 also submitted that though he (i.e. the complainant-respondent No.2) is an employee of Kandla Port Trust and head office of Kandla Port Trust is at Kandla, Gandhidham, but he (i.e. the complainant-respondent No.2) is not posted/stationed at Kandla, Gandhidham, and that therefore, the petitioner is not right or justified in contending that the complainant is employed at Gandhidham. 5.1. Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 has further claimed that after considering the submissions and request by the petitioner, the Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave) passed the order granting ad-interim relief in below mentioned terms : "Ad-interim relief to the extent that proceedings pending at the Court of Gandhidham Court, Kutchh shall remain stayed. However, the proceedings at the Court of Jam-Khambhaliya, Jamnagar are not stayed at all." and that, therefore, when proceedings in the Court at Gandhidham is stayed, the petitioner is now not justified in seeking transfer of proceedings from Jam-Khambhaliya to Gandhidham. 5.2. On strength of and in light of the said facts, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 contended that the attempt of the petitioner is only to delay the proceedings. So as to justify and support the said submission, respondent No.2 has placed on record the copies of applications seeking adjournment filed by the petitioner before the learned Court at Jam-Khambhaliya. 6. I have extensively heard Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vyas, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 as well as learned A.P.P. I have also considered the material made available on record by the petitioner and respondent No.2. 7. The request made by the petitioner is required to be examined in light of the provision under Sec. 407 of the Code and the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the petitioner's conduct. 7.1. 7. The request made by the petitioner is required to be examined in light of the provision under Sec. 407 of the Code and the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the petitioner's conduct. 7.1. The petitioner is the accused person in the case sought to be transferred which is filed under Sec. 499 read with Sec. 500 of the Code. 8. It is necessary and relevant to mention that the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and the details mentioned therein, particularly the details about the various applications filed by the petitioner-including the application levelling allegations against the learned Magistrate - are not denied or disputed by the petitioner and the said details/reply affidavit have remained uncontroverted. 8.1. It is also relevant to recall the allegation and assertion made by the complainant/respondent No.2 in Para 7 of reply-affidavit, which reads thus: "7. Learned Advocate Mr. M. B. Sardar, a Senior practicing lawyer at Bhuj would file his appearance as lawyer to represent the applicant herein - accused therein on 31-10-2012 along with application at Exh. 95, seeking such permission. With filing of such application on the record of the trial, learned J.M.F.C. Jam-Khambhaliya would pass an order, inter alia, observing 'the matter shall get transfer, as I have been coming from Bhuj Bar'. Upon passing of such order, the papers were forwarded to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, would called for records and proceedings of the Case No. 458 of 2009, vide order dated 6-12-2012. The orders to be passed by the learned Sessions Court for allotment of the matter, are awaited and it is on such that the matter would be placed before the concerned Court for further trial. " 8.2. The said assertion by respondent No. 2 has also remained uncontroverted. According to respondent No.2, the said conduct of the petitioner speaks volumes about the attempts and intention of the petitioner and makes it evident that the petitioner merely wants to delay the proceedings. 8.3. The complainant, i.e. the respondent has instituted proceedings alleging offence under Sec. 499 read with Sec. 500 of the Code. The said Sec. 499 reads thus : "499. 8.3. The complainant, i.e. the respondent has instituted proceedings alleging offence under Sec. 499 read with Sec. 500 of the Code. The said Sec. 499 reads thus : "499. Whoever, by words, either spoken or intended to be publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanation 1 : It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2 : It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3 : An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4 : No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful." 8.4. According to the said provision when any imputation, with intention to harm or with knowledge that it will harm reputation of any person, is made by sign or visible representation or words spoken or published then the aggrieved person can institute action in law where the publication is made of words are spoken and heard or sign/representation are made and seen whereby his reputation is harmed. 8.5. The necessary ingredients are: (a) "intention to harm reputation"; and (b) "words, spoken or intended to be read, which may harm reputation of a person" or "signs or visible representation which may harm a person's reputation"; and (c) "speaking or publishing such words" or "making such sign or visible representation"; and (d) "knowledge or reason to believe" that such words, sign, representation imputation will harm reputation of a person. 9. 9. Ordinarily, in cases where the alleged offence is under Sec. 499 read with Sec. 500 of I. P. C., the proceedings would be maintainable where publication of defamatory or libelous article/statement is made. Therefore, it would be useful to take into consideration the meaning of the terms "publish" and "publication". In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Fifth Edition, Vol. 2, the word (verb) "publish" is defined thus : "Make generally known; declare or report openly; announce; disseminate (a creed or system); Populate (a country etc.); Announce (an edict etc.) in a formal or official manner, pronounce (a judicial sentence). Proclaim (the banns) in church before a marriage. Also (obsolete exc. U.S.), announce or list the names of (people) as intending marriage. Proclaim (a person) publicly to be a traitor etc.; denounce. Bring (a thing) to public notice. Of an author, publisher, etc.; prepare and issue (a book, newspaper, report, piece of music, etc.) for sale to the public. Also, prepare and issue the work of (an author; composer, etc.). Make (a work, information, etc.) generally accessible or available; place before the public; make (news, data, research findings, etc.) generally available through the medium of a newspaper, book, journal, etc. Come into public circulation; be issued." (Emphasis supplied) and the word (verb) "publication" is defined thus: "The action of making something generally known; public declaration or announcement. Notification or communication to a third party or to a limited number of people regarded as representing the public; execution of a will before witnesses; communication of defamatory words to a person or persons other than the person or organization defamed. The process of producing and issuing for public sale a book newspaper, report, piece of music, or other printed or reproduced matter. A work published; a book etc., produced and issued for public sale." (Emphasis supplied) "To make known; to make public (the statement was published when he showed it to his colleague). Circulate, utter, issue, put in circulation, announce, broadcast, promulgate, speak, advise the public, air, trumpet, disseminate, print, bring out, spread, advertise, disclose, herald, blazon, report, divulge, impart, exhibit, ventilate, publicize, blazon express, distribute, inform. See also notify, communicate, promote." (Emphasis supplied) and the word (verb) "publication" is defined thus: "making something known to people, (the publication of an opinion) disclosure, presentation, revelation, circulation, printing, propagation, promulgation broadcasting, notice, release, publishing, announcement, airing, dissemination, exposition, pronouncement, publicizing, advertisement, broadcast. See also notify, communicate, promote." (Emphasis supplied) and the word (verb) "publication" is defined thus: "making something known to people, (the publication of an opinion) disclosure, presentation, revelation, circulation, printing, propagation, promulgation broadcasting, notice, release, publishing, announcement, airing, dissemination, exposition, pronouncement, publicizing, advertisement, broadcast. Something that has been published (the publication was censored). Periodical, book, treatise, magazine, newspaper, circular, bulletin, volume, communication, flyer, serial, issue, piece, composition, article, opus, document, correspondence, diary, story, writing, tome, play, novel, report, manuscript, edition." 9.1. The meaning of the term "publish" and/or "publication", as the above-quoted definitions from Dictionary and Legal Thesaurus suggest, also means "circulation" and/or to make the work/imputation/article, etc., generally accessible to public or to put in public circulation. 9.2. Hence, when the newspaper in which the article or the imputation is printed and published, is circulated at place other than the place where it is printed and published, then the article/imputation can be said to have been "published" at such other place. 9.3. Consequently, the learned Court in whose jurisdiction the newspaper or book etc., wherein, such article or imputation is printed and published, will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint alleging offence under Sec.499 read with Sec. 500 of the Code. 9.4. Thus, "making available for reading or seeing" or "circulating" is an important and relevant constituent or element. Therefore, when any article or material is printed and published and is "made available for reading, seeing etc." or is "circulated" at different places then such article or material is or said to have been published at such different places where it is made available, circulated or sold. 9.5. If defamatory allegation or statement or article is published and circulated in ordinary course at different/several places, then the offence can be said to have been committed not only at such place where such defamatory article, statement or allegation is published but also at the place where it is circulated or has manifestation or becomes available and is read on its circulation and the aggrieved person may have cause of action at such other place and the learned Court in whose jurisdiction such defamatory imputation is circulated will have jurisdiction to try the case. 9.6. 9.6. Hence, if circulation is made also at a place other than the place it is printed and published, then it would not be unreasonable to say that the place where the matter is circulated will also have jurisdiction to try the case. 9.7. The offence takes place when and/or whenever such matter/ imputation is published or circulated because each circulation of defamatory imputation would constitute separate offence. Consequently, the witnesses (of such aggrieved person/) to prove his/their respective case that the comment or allegation or action or publication/article related to him hurt and harmed him, would be different. 10. In cases under Sec. 499 read with Sec. 500 if there are more than one complainant and more than one complaint against same publication, then each complainant may have different reasons to feel aggrieved by the publication/article or action or words or each complainant may feel aggrieved by different remarks/comments or allegations, etc., in the same article. . 10.1. In such circumstances, each complainant may file separate complaint. 10.2. In all cases filed by different aggrieved persons, the proceedings/ trial would be separate and the final judgment in each case would depend on the evidence on record of that case. 10.3. The complainant in the complaint which is pending before the learned Court at Gandhidham, is different person/complainant from the complainant in the complaint filed before the learned Court at Jam-Khambhaliya. 11. Furthermore, the witnesses in the complaint/case pending before the learned Court at Jam-Khambhaliya are different from the witnesses who may be examined in the case pending before the learned Court at Gandhidham. 12. The complainant in the said case pending at learned Court at Gandhidham would lead his own independent and separate documentary and/or oral evidence and his witnesses would be different from the documentary and/or oral evidence and the witnesses to be examined by the complainant in the proceedings pending before the learned Court at Jam-Khambhaliya. 12.1. In such circumstances, the petitioner's request on the ground that the trial of two cases by two complainants at two different decisions, and therefore, both cases, though filed by different aggrieved persons/complainants may be tried at one place, is not justified. 12.2. The petitioner is also not justified in contending that the proceedings at Jam-Khambhaliya should be transferred to Gandhidham so as to avoid different decisions by two different Courts. 12.3. 12.2. The petitioner is also not justified in contending that the proceedings at Jam-Khambhaliya should be transferred to Gandhidham so as to avoid different decisions by two different Courts. 12.3. In each case, the decision by the concerned learned Court would depend upon the material and evidence which is made available before the concerned Court and their appreciation in light of the facts of the case and relevant provisions. 12.4. For the same reason, the petitioner's contention on the ground that his defence would be disclosed, is also not justified or sustainable for entertaining the request for transfer of proceedings. 13. The petitioner is accused in the two cases filed by two different persons/complainants and that, therefore, as an accused, he does not have any right to select or insist for place where the proceedings should continue and proceed. 14. The petitioner/accused wants to get the case transferred from Jam-Khambhaliya to Gandhidham because he stays at Gandhidham-Kutch. 15. It is relevant and important to mention that the learned Counsel for the complainant, i.e. respondent No.2. has emphasized that the witnesses to be examined for the proceedings before the learned Court at Jam-Khambhaliya are residents of Jam-Khambhaliya or area near and around Jam-Khambhaliya and that, therefore, if the petitioner's request is accepted and granted, then the said witnesses will have to travel from Jam-Khambhaliya to Gandhidham. 16. In present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the newspaper which carried allegedly defamatory article/imputations (i.e. the newspaper wherein the allegedly defamatory article/imputations was printed and published) was not circulated at Jam-Khambhaliya. 17. 16. In present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the newspaper which carried allegedly defamatory article/imputations (i.e. the newspaper wherein the allegedly defamatory article/imputations was printed and published) was not circulated at Jam-Khambhaliya. 17. It is relevant to mention that in present case, when the complainants in the proceedings at Jam-Khambhaliya and the proceedings at Gandhidham are different persons and when the evidence on behalf of both complainants (as to the relevant aspects e.g. he is affected party, the article hurts him and harms his image and reputation, etc.) are likely to rely, would be different and when the witnesses of the complainant in the proceedings at Jam-Khambhaliya, i.e. the witnesses of respondent No.2 are residing at and are residents of Jam-Khambhaliya (who will have to travel from Jam-Khambhaliya to Gandhidham if petitioner's request is accepted) and when this Hon'ble Court, after considering the submission by learned Counsel for the petitioner, directed, by way of ad-interim relief, that the proceedings pending at the learned Court at Gandhidham shall remain stayed, the request to transfer the proceedings pending before the learned Court at JamKhambhaliya to the learned Court at Gandhidham do not deserve to be entertained and granted. 18. There is no justification or any strong and cogent reason or compelling circumstance in view of which petitioner's request can be considered and granted. 19. Normally, the proceedings should be initiated, maintained and allowed to be continued before the learned Court where the proceedings are ordinarily maintainable as per the provisions under the Code and unless any circumstance or reason contemplated under Sec. 407 of the Code is made out and the Court is satisfied about the justification, any order to transfer the proceedings ought not be passed. 20. As per Sec. 407 and also in view of other provisions in the Code, the Court can direct transfer of proceedings only in such cases where any one or more circumstance/s or factors or situation contemplated under the said Section, exist and not for any other or unconnected reason. 21. 20. As per Sec. 407 and also in view of other provisions in the Code, the Court can direct transfer of proceedings only in such cases where any one or more circumstance/s or factors or situation contemplated under the said Section, exist and not for any other or unconnected reason. 21. Of course, the expression 'expedient for the ends of justice' is of wide amplitude and scope in light of which the power can be exercised for any just reason, however, the said provision mandates that the discretion must be exercised judicially and not on any ipse dixit or for any unconnected or unreasonable or trivial ground or for convincing of accused. The judicial mind must be satisfied about the reason or ground on which the request for transferring the proceedings is made and it should appeal to the Court as just and reasonable request. 21.1. In present case, the substance of the submission by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's case falls under clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 407, particularly the expression 'will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses'. 21.2. On the contrary, the facts suggest otherwise inasmuch as from the facts of the case, it emerges that the witnesses to be examined in the proceedings before the learned Court at Jam-Khambhaliya are locals and residents of Jam-Khambhaliya or places near or around Jam-Khambhaliya and that, therefore, the request to transfer the case from Jam-Khambhaliya to Gandhidham would not fall within the expression 'convenience of parties or witnesses'. 21.3. Actually, if the request is granted, then the witnesses, according to the respondent, will have to travel the distance from Jam-Khambhaliya to Gandhidham. 21.4. Therefore, even on equitable consideration or on ground of general convenience also, the petitioner's request does not fall within and does not deserve to be considered and granted under clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 407. 22. It also appears from the events and material on record that the petitioner has tried to delay and/or derail the proceedings. 22.1. It appears from the record that at one stage, the petitioner-accused had also filed an application (Exh. 73) levelling allegations against the learned Magistrate and when the said application was not entertained by the learned trial Court, the petitioner challenged the said order also before this Court by way of Misc. 22.1. It appears from the record that at one stage, the petitioner-accused had also filed an application (Exh. 73) levelling allegations against the learned Magistrate and when the said application was not entertained by the learned trial Court, the petitioner challenged the said order also before this Court by way of Misc. Criminal Application No. 12588 of 2012. 23. The Court is satisfied that the petitioner failed to make out any ground to transfer the proceedings as requested and/or that any cogent, convincing strong and satisfactory ground to consider and allow petitioner's request for transfer of proceedings does not exist in present case and neither any case to support and justify such request is made out by the petitioner. 23.1. On the contrary, it appears that if the request is granted, it would tend to cause difficulties and inconvenience to the witnesses to be examined in the proceedings pending before the learned Court at Jam-Khambhaliya. 24. As an upshot of the foregoing discussion and reason, it emerges that the petition and the request made by the petitioner do not deserve to be entertained and granted. 24.1. The petition fails and deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Notice is discharged. If any ad-interim relief is in operation, the same shall stand vacated forthwith. 24.2. In the facts of the case, the Court would be justified in dismissing the petition with costs, however, considering the submission and request by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, any order visiting the petitioner with obligation to pay costs is not passed. Order accordingly. Petition dismissed.