APHC010076672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11/2025 Between: Yempada Srirama Prasada Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.11 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioners herein have filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., Act seeking to withdraw C.C.No.4920 of 2023, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. 2. The case of the petitioners is as follows: I. The petitioner No.1 is the defacto-complainant and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the LW2 and LW3 and on 18/19.03.2023, at about 01.20 a.m., at NH-16 road, Satyam Junction, Visakhapatnam City, when the defacto-complainant along with his mother (LW3) and his sister (LW2) travelling from Srikalahasthi to his residence, an accident took place, wherein the defacto-complainant and the LWs 2 and 3 were injured. Accordingly, on 19.03.2023, the defacto-complainant along with his father lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Police Station, under Sections 337, 279, 506 and 509 IPC and under Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act vide Cr.No.20 of 2023. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet and the case is numbered as C.C.No.4920 of 2023, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. II. The petitioners further pleaded that the accused pleaded not guilty and subsequently the trial Court directed to issue summons to LWs 1 to 3 by 23.01.2025, accordingly, the police have issued summons on 22.01.2025, at which time the petitioner No.1 expressed his inability to attend the court on the very next day as he is in Hyderabad. The petitioners further pleaded that when the matter was called 23.01.2025, the accused was called and recorded as absent. The petitioner further pleaded that subsequently, the summons of LW1 was served to him through whatsapp and the S.H.O, Dwaraka Police Station returned the summons along with whatsapp report and Memo and the same is considered. Basing on the contents mentioned in Memo and other material accompanied with the record, the Court considered that the summons of LWs1 to 3 deemed to be served and the LWs 1 to 3 are called absent. III. The petitioners further pleaded that the trial Court had written the docket order that “in view of the compromise request by both sides, posted to 19.02.2025”. The petitioners further pleaded that the trial Judge is well motivated to compromise the matter inspite of the objection of the complainant and forcefully asking the petitioners to compromise and that the trial Judge is acting in a biased manner towards the accused and harassing the petitioners to compromise by issuing warrants. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present transfer criminal petition seeking to withdraw C.C.No.4920 of 2023, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. 3. Heard Sri N.Bharath Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/State. Though notice has been served on the respondent No.2 none appeared for the respondent. Perused the material available on record 4. The grounds urged by the petitioners for seeking transfer of the case is that the learned trial Judge is well motivated to compromise the matter inspite of the objection of the complainant and forcefully directing the petitioners to compromise and that the trial Judge is acting in a biased manner towards the accused and harassing the petitioner to compromise and the petitioners are seeking to transfer the case in C.C.No.4920 of 2023 from the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. 5. The alleged offence has taken place on 18/19.03.2023, at about 01.20 a.m., and the same was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Police Station, under Sections 337, 279, 506 and 509 IPC and under Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act vide Cr.No.20 of 2023 and after completion of investigation the police filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.4920 of 2023, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner No.1 is the defacto-complainant and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the witnesses in the charge sheet. The purpose of criminal trial is to dispose a fair and impartial justice un-influenced by extraneous considerations. Moreover, the petitioners are the witnesses in C.C.No.4920 of 2023 and their appearance is required on the date of giving evidence before the trial Court. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary based upon on conjunctures and surmises. It is well settled that “no universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding the transfer petition, which is always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. It is also well settled that “the convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioner/accused alone, who approached the Court on misconceived notions of apprehension”. 6. As noticed supra, “the convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the accused alone. The convenience for the purpose of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, witnesses and larger interest of the society”. As stated supra, no prima facie material is produced by the petitioners to prove that the presiding officer of the trial Court is acting unfairly and moreover, the petitioners herein as well as respondent No.2 are residing within the territorial limits of Visakhapatnam, but the petitioners are seeking transfer of the case in C.C.No.4920 of 2023 from the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioners and as such, the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 7. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 15.04.2026 SRT