ORDER : 1. Heard the petitioners’ counsel and also learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of the case which is pending before the lower Court to any other Court on the ground that the Presiding Officer has openly expressed in the Court that the Court is going to convict the accused persons and hence, the Court below is biased while passing the order in disposing of the application under Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C. The Court made observation that unless and until establishes the fact, any good relationship by way of love will not come to rescue of accused Nos.1 and 2 and the said opinion is expressed with regard to consensual sex he had with her and hence, there is apprehension that these petitioners will not get justice at the hands of the Presiding Officer. 3. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that the Court below has recorded the evidence of the witnesses and while disposing of the application, the observation has been made taking into note of the defence hence, same cannot be a ground to invoke Section 407 of Cr.P.C. to transfer the petition to some other Court, hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the petition. 4. Having heard the arguments of the petitioners’ counsel and also HCGP and having taken note of the grounds urged in the petition, the factual aspects of the case discloses that the offence under Section 376 and other offences are invoked against these petitioners herein and also the application is filed before the lower Court invoking Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C. and the said application was dismissed and thereafter, same is also questioned before this Court in Crl.P. No.100193/2019 and this Court also while disposing of the petition confirmed the order of the dismissal. 5. The counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the evidence has already been completed and case is set down for arguments and the matter may be transferred to any other Court. He further submits that the Judge is openly expressed the opinion about the case and also in the Court there was an exchange of words between the Advocate for accused No.2 and the learned Sessions Judge. All the Advocate of Hubli Bar Association were boycotted the Court for several days. He further submits that the Judge is openly expressed the opinion about the case and also in the Court there was an exchange of words between the Advocate for accused No.2 and the learned Sessions Judge. All the Advocate of Hubli Bar Association were boycotted the Court for several days. Thereafter, due to intervention of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, the boycott was withdrawn. 6. For having taken note of the submissions made by the petitioners’ counsel and also the HCGP appearing for the respondent, it has to be noted that this Court while considering the Crl.P.No. 100193/2019 with regard to forming of the opinion that unless and until establish this fact any good relationship by way of love will not come to rescuing accused Nos.1 and 2 and in this regard, it is observed in the earlier order that while considering the application filed under Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C., the Court below while rejecting the application has assigned the reasons that what is to be rebutted by the defence if at all is there any evidence to show that he had forceful sexual intercourse with her, he has to rebut by establishing the fact that it was consensual sex he had with her and unless and until establish this fact any good relationship by way of love will not come to rescuing accused Nos.1 and 2 and further observed that accused have failed to make out the case and convince the Court that it is just and necessary to call PW-21 and comes to the conclusion that there is no any merit and that is the opinion expressed by the Court while considering the application filed on merits. That does not mean that he has already formed an opinion to convict the accused. 7. That does not mean that he has already formed an opinion to convict the accused. 7. In order to invoke Section 407 of Cr.P.C., there must be a material to invoke the said proviso that a fair and impartial enquiry or trial cannot be in any criminal Court and proviso (2) also says that; “This Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative: Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. 8. The submissions made before this Court by the petitioners’ counsel is not supported by any documentary proof with regard to show that the Judge is prejudiced, except the oral say that the Judge has expressed the same in the open Court and mere making such submission, this Court cannot invoke Section 407 of Cr.P.C. 9. Petitioners’ counsel also brought to my notice the order sheet dated 15/2/2019. On perusal of the order sheet dated 15/2/2019 also, the Court below mentioned the details with regard to on what date the evidence was completed and on what date 313 statement was recorded. It appears that 313 statement was recorded on 22/11/2018 and thereafter, the learned Public Prosecutor also submitted his arguments. Further noted in the order sheet that the Court granted totally 5 adjournments for submitting the arguments of the accused. Time was given and even in the month of December itself, that was on 14/12/2018, an application is filed before the very same Court seeking the transfer of the matter and thereafter, in the month of February i.e. on 14/2/2019, the accused persons have filed an affidavit stating that they have no faith in this Court and they are intended to move the transfer petition before this Court. In spite of the said affidavit filed also, the Court has made an observation in the order sheet that if the conduct of the accused’s are considered, they have adopted the tactics for delaying in further proceedings in the case. However, by considering their request to approach appropriate forum the date was given to the petitioners herein. 10. In spite of the said affidavit filed also, the Court has made an observation in the order sheet that if the conduct of the accused’s are considered, they have adopted the tactics for delaying in further proceedings in the case. However, by considering their request to approach appropriate forum the date was given to the petitioners herein. 10. Having taken note of the reading of the entire order sheet, I found only with regard to the stages of the proceedings has been mentioned in the order sheet and nothing I found any prejudicial order has been passed against the petitioners. Even when an application is filed for transfer of the case before the same Court, the Judge has rightly formed an opinion that the said Court has no power to transfer the case and it appears that the petitioners themselves even though aware of the fact that the very same Judge cannot transfer the petition and he has no such power, an application was filed before the Court and not only that was in the month of December and almost after lapse of two months again filed an affidavit before the Court stating that no faith. It is nothing but an abuse of process by coming in the way of disposal of the case. The petitioners instead of assisting the Court, adopted the tactics of filing one or the other application i.e. for transfer of the case knowingly well that the very same judge cannot proceed with the transfer of the case. In spite of after two months of the said application, once again an affidavit is filed. It appears the petitioners are avoiding the disposal of the case in the said Court and I did not find any such prejudicial order in the order sheet referred by the counsel appearing before this Court. 11. For having taken note of the submissions made before this Court, I do not find any bias or anything. Mere passing an order against the petitioners itself is not a ground for transfer of the petition and there must be some material before the Court that the Court is prejudiced and instead of that, it appears the petitioners are not assisting the Court even though the trial was completed on 30/11/2018. Mere passing an order against the petitioners itself is not a ground for transfer of the petition and there must be some material before the Court that the Court is prejudiced and instead of that, it appears the petitioners are not assisting the Court even though the trial was completed on 30/11/2018. Almost six months has been lapsed from the date of conclusion of the trial and instead of arguing the case, even after the argument of the learned SP was completed on 31/12/2018, the petitioners have not assisted the Court in disposal of the case and it appears these petitioners are instead of assisting the Court in one or the other reason coming in the way of disposal of the case and hence, I do not find any reasons to invoke Section 407 of Cr.P.C. to transfer the case. 12. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed.