APHC010655422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 113/2025 Between: Thirumalasetty Mounesh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B VAMSI KRISHNA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.113 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., Act seeking to withdraw C.C.No.370 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle and transfer the same to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupet to try along with C.C.No.254 of 2025. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: I. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent No.2/wife and their marriage has been performed on 24.02.2023 at Sullurupet as per Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner/husband pleaded that in view of the rumours created by the respondent No.2 and her family members stating that the petitioner/husband is having an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law, the sister-in-law of the petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent No.2 and one Miriyala Subramanyam under Sections 79, 292, 351 (2) r/w 3(5) BNS vide FIR No.113 of 2025 and after completion of investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.254 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupeta and the case is pending for trial. As a counterblast, the respondent No.2/wife has filed a criminal case vide C.C.No.370 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Junior Judge-Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, under Section 85 r/w 3(5) BNS and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent No.2/wife filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.41 of 2025, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle, a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.34 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, and a case H.M.O.P.No.182 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the petitioner herein is attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid case before the competent Court at Madanapalle. The petitioner/husband pleaded that he filed H.M.O.P.No.155 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband further contended that the petitioner is staying at Bangalore along with his age-old parents and it is very difficult for him to travel a distance of more than 230 kms from Bengaluru to Madanapalle for attending the proceedings in the cases filed by the respondent No.2/wife before the courts at Madanapalle, on each and every date of adjournment and the respondent No.2 and her family members are very influential at Madanapalle and as the case in C.C.No.254 of 2025 is pending before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupeta, the petitioner/husband is constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to withdraw C.C.No.370 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle and transfer the same to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupet to try along with C.C.No.254 of 2025. 3. Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/State and Sri B.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/wife. Perused the material available on record. 4. The petitioner herein is the accused No.1 in C.C.No.370 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle. On the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2/wife a case in Cr.No.140 of 2025 under Section 85 r/w 3(5) BNS and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act after completion of investigation, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Rural Police Station, filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.370 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle. The grounds urged by the petitioner/husband for seeking transfer of C.C.No.370 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupet, are that the accused No.4 in C.C.No.370 of 2025 filed a complaint before the Sullurupeta Police Station against the respondent No.2 and another for the offences punishable under Sections 79, 292, 351 (2) r/w 3(5) BNS and after completion of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.254 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupeta. 5. The contention of the petitioner herein is that the respondent No.2 and her family members are very much influential at their native place and there is a possibility of tampering with the witnesses and the case in C.C.No.370 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, may be transferred to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupeta. Except the said bald allegation in the affidavit of the petitioner, no prima facie evidence is produced by the petitioner herein to show that the respondent No.2 and her family members are very much influential in their native place and there is a huge possibility of tampering with witnesses. The law is well settled that “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.” 6. The material on record further goes to show that the dates and places of the alleged offences in C.C.No.370 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle and C.C.No.254 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupeta, are distinct. The date and place of the alleged offence in both the cases are distinct and in C.C.No.370 of 2025, all the witnesses that are about eight (08) in numbers are residing within the jurisdiction of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle. The law is well settled that “the purpose of criminal trial is to dispose a fair and impartial justice un-influenced by extraneous considerations. Every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by the Court within its local jurisdiction it was committed. The cause of action and the alleged offences as per the First Information Report are alleged to have been arising out within the jurisdiction of the Court.” It is also 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. 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”. 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 noticed supra, all the witnesses in C.C.No.370 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, are residing within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, in case, if C.C.No.370 of 2025, is withdrawn and transferred from Madanapalle to Sullurupet, the witnesses will face much difficulty and they have to travel at a distance of more than 200 kms to give their evidence before the Court at Sullurupeta. 7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner and as such, the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 8. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. 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: 22.04.2026 SRT