IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARy,^^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE -rj' 3 b. oAv o/ ^/j PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 44 OF 2024 Between: 1. Thamalampudi Mahesh Reddy, S/o.Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy, aged 36 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.D.No.6-68/1, Canal Road, Anaparthi Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 2. Thamalampudi Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Late Veerreddy, aged 65 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.D.No.6-68/1 Anaparthi Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 3. Thamalampudi Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy aged 58 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o.D.No.6-68/1, Canal Road Anaparthi Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. Canal Road, ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Vinukonda Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Thamalampudi Ashwini, W/o. Thamalampudi Mahesh Reddy, aged 30 years, R/o.D.No.1-232, Opposite Ramalayam Temple, Vittam Rajupalli Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Palanadu District. ...Respondents Petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C read with Section 482 of G/.F.G, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Gourt may be pleased to transfer the G.G.No.288 of 2022 m the file of Judicial First Glass Magistrate Gourt, Vinukonda,Guntur District to the Gourt of Judicial First Glass Magistrate at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District or to any other JFGM Gourt in East Godavari District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition filed under Section 407 (6) of Gr.P.G, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Gourt may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in G.G.No.288 of 2022 on the file of JFGM Vinukonda, Guntur District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Griminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Venkatesh, Advocate for Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and of Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: I % THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.44 of 2024 ORDER: The petitioners in Tr.Crl.P.No.44 of 2024 have filed the present petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C., seeking to transfer C.C.No.288 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vinukonda, Guntur District to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District or to any other JFCM Court in East Godavari District. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows; 2. The petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the parents of the petitioner I. No.1 and the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent No.2 has been performed at Tirupati on 28.03.2018. Due to matrimonial disputes between both the parties, they are residing separately. The petitioner No.1 further pleaded that the respondent No.2 filed a false complaint alleging that the petitioners herein harassed her physically and mentally and demanding additional dowry vide FIR No.82 of 2022 before the Vinukonda Police Station under Section 498(A) IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, the same was numbered as C.C.No.288 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class 2 Vinukonda, Guntur District. The petitioners Magistrate at further pleaded that they are being threatened by the father of the respondent No.2 on several occasions and further the petitioner No.1 is appearing before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Vinukonda, in connection with the cases filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners. Further, afraid of attending the same due to the the petitioners are father of the respondent No.2 and his threat of the associates, ll. The petitioner No.1 further pleaded that on 03.05.2024, when Nos.1 and 2 attended the Court proceedings in C.C.No.288 of 2022 and came out, the father of the respondent No.2 and his supporters attacked the petitioner with sticks and caused injuries. Alleging the same the petitioners filed a complaint before the Vinukonda registered as FIR.No.97 of 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Further the Maintenance Case vide the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 Police Station; the same was 2024, under Sections respondent No.2 had filed a M.C.No.6 of 2023 and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.4 of 2023, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Vinukonda against the petitioners. Further, the had filed H.M.O.P.No.93 of 2022, on the file of Civil Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, under Class Court, petitioner No.1 the Senior p, 3 i Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. Thereafter, the petitioners had also filed Crl.P.No.7424 of 2022, before this Court seeking quash of the proceedings in C.C.No.288 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vinukonda, wherein this Court had dispensed with the appearance of the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 herein. Due to the threat from the father of the respondent No.2 and his associates, the petitioners are constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to transfer C.C.No.288 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vinukonda, Guntur District to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District or to any other JFCM Court in East Godavari District. Heard Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioners 3. learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and perused the record. During the course of the hearing, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 had represented that they do not have any objection if this Court is inclined to transfer the present 4. case to any other Court at Guntur. 1^-/ 4 It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a Criminal Case, the transfer of the case has to be accepted in exceptional cases, considering the fact that the transfers may unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. The Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India & ors^ held as follows: 5. “24.Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are; (i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution; (ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant; (iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses; (iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and ^ 2011 (1) see 307 >1 5 (v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice.” It is made clear that at the time of transferring a Criminal 6. Case, the inconvenience caused to the alleged complainant/victim and the witnesses cannot be ignored. In view of the allegations leveled against the respondent No.2 7. and her father and as well as the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the considered view that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioners to transfer the case in C.C.No.288 of 2022, from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vinukonda, Guntur District to the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. Further on considering the request made by the petitioners that as the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are senior citizens and they are none other than the parents of the petitioner No.1, the personal appearance of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.288 of 2022, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur except on the days when their presence is required as per law. In the result, the case in C.C.No.288 of 2022, from the 8. Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vinukonda, Guntur District is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. Judicial First Class Magistrate 7 .4 6 Court, Vinukonda, Guntur District, shall transmit the case record in C.C.No.288 of 2022 to the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Further, the personal appearance of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.288 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vinukonda Guntur District, is hereby dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e. the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur except on the days when their presence is required as per law. With the above observations, the present Transfer Criminal 9. Petition is disposed of. 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. Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANj REGI$Tf^AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, Guntur District. 2. The VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. One CC to Sri K Venkatesh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED;29/01/2025 ORDER TRCRLP.No.44 of 2024 ^ 0 5 MAR 20?5 | ^ Current aecuon DISPOSING OF THE TR.CRLP WITHOUT COSTS