JUDGMENT (Per K. L. Wadane, J) Heard Mr. S. Dhauskar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Nayak Salatry, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. V. Nayak Salatry, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent. 4. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 9.4.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 92/2014 and also prayed for transfer of Criminal Case No. 85/S/2014/A pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class,”A” Court at Vasco to some other Court or North Goa jurisdiction. 5. Perused the petition and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge from which it is seen that the grounds set out by the petitioner for the transfer of the petition are mainly that the Additional Public prosecutor who is representing the complainant is not giving proper advice and he is insisting the complainant to depose only about the offence of dowry. The next ground is that husband of the complainant is police constable and some time he was attending the Court as orderly and thirdly that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class was giving short dates for the purpose of speedy disposal of the matter. The accused persons were discharged from other charges except the charge punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. 6. I have gone though the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the transfer petition under Section 408 of Cr.P.C. The grounds set out and arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner are not sufficient to transfer the matter from one Court to another Court. Mr. Dhauskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the observation in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chattisgarh and others, reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri.) 828 (S.C.) 7. I have gone through the facts and observations of the above cited authority. Such observations have absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. 8. There is no substance in the petition, consequently, petition stands dismissed. 9. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.