•- i ■ ■■ APHC010264472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA P AT AiVIARAVATI ‘V s< WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO transfer criminal petition mo 40 OF 2025 ■' Between: A Mounika @ M Mounika, W/o. Late M. Private Employee, Residing Anantapuramu District. Rupesh Naidu, aged 27 years Occ; fKondapuram Village, Yelianur Mandal r Petitioner --- -r .1: ■ ^and 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented Through the Public Prosecutor, Amaravati. ' ' 2. M Rupesh, S/o. M. Prakash Naidu, (Died) 3. M Lakshminarasamma: v|to"prakash7N^^^^ yeafs, Ogc: House Wife, Residing at 18;775-137-B8, 60 feet rba^ Guntakal. 4. M Prakash Naidu, S/o. Late M. Ghinna Agricuiture, Residing at 18-775 Guntakal. 5. M Ramesh Naidu, S/o: Prakdsh Naidu. Residing at 18-775-137-B8, 60 feet road , -• r by its: Station 7House Officer^ High Court of Andhra Pradesh j i i . i ross > Rangainna, Aged 55 years, Occ: 5-137-B8, 60 feet road, 7th -i cross } Aged 30 years, Occ: Agriculture 7th cross^ Guntakal.: 7 ^ 1 j 'f. y--) f t -■.f: . \. -) ^ viRes^ndenti^ Praying that in the prcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to transfer the C.C.No,238 of 2021 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal to try the 2023 pending on the file of the Assistant Session Judge, Gooty. IA NOj 1OF2025 Petition filed under section 447 r/w 528 of BNSS } ■ < '• j c may be same along with S.G.No. 45 of Petition under Section 447 (6) r/w 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No. 238 of 2021 pending on the file of the jadtciapWagistfate S.C.No. 45 of 2023 pending on the file' of the Assistant Session Judge, Gooty pending disposal of the above Transfer Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Seshadri j First Class, Guntakal and in > Goalla Counsel for the Respondenf No.1; Public Prosecutor i Counsel for other Respohdents: None Appeared The Court made the following:. ) i J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.40 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner herein have filed the present petition under Section 447 r/w 528 of B.N.S.S., seeking to transfer C.C.No.238 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty to try along with S.C.No.45 of 2023. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows; I. The petitioner herein had lodged a complaint against her husband/respondent and his family members before the II Town Police Station, Guntakal vide Cr.No.43 of 2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 324 and 506 r/w 34 I PC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was numbered as C.C.No.238 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal. The petitioner pleaded that subsequent to the lodging of the complaint before the II Town Police Station, Guntakal, by the petitioner, her husband/respondent No.2 had committed suicide and due to which, the family members of the deceased respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint before the II Town Police Station, Guntakal vide Cr.No.44 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506 and 448 r/w 34 I PC against the petitioner and her family members. The petitioner further pleaded that the police after completion of investigation had filed a charge sheet vide S.C.No.45 of 2023, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty and the same is pending for trial. 2 ... Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has filed Tr.C.M.P.No.35 of 2024 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, seeking for transfer of C.C.No.238 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal to the Assistant Sessions Judge. Gooty, wherein the trial Court after conducting an enquiry, vide its order dated 25.11.2024, has dismissed the transfer petition filed by the petitioner. He would further contend that both the cases are related to each other and as such the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition seeking to transfer C.C.No.238 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty to try along with S.C.No.45 of 2023. 3. Heard Sri Goalla Seshadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor representing for the respondent No. 1/State. Perused the record. 4. The material on record prima facie shows that in the aforementioned cases, the date of alleged incident and the witnesses are different from each other. Further, the petitioner herein is the accused No.1 in S.C.No.45 of 2023, pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty, whereas the respondent Nos.3 accused in C.C.No.238 of 2021 Guntakal. to 5 are the on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class 5. 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 cast unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the \ 3 m Prosecution Agency. The Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India & ors^ held as follows; 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 (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.” *1 % 6. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law that while transferring a Criminal Case, the transfer of the case has to be accepted in ^ 2011(1)see 307 / 4 exceptional cases, considering the fact that the transfers may cast unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. As stated supra, the date of incidents and as well as the witnesses in the both the cases are different with each. Further, the law is well settled that while transferring a Criminal Case from Court to another Court, the convenience of the witnesses has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the accused. “However, one as the petitioner herein is the victim/de-facto complainant in C.C.No.238 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal and in a Criminal Case, the appearance of the victim is not at all required on each and every date of adjournment and he/she has to attend the Court proceedings on the day for giving their evidence and the entire case has to be looked after by the learned Public Prosecutor of the concerned Court”. 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. 7. 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. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sectionNofficer To, 1. The Assistant Session Judge: Gooty, Ananthapur District. 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Glass: Guntakial, Ananthapur District. 3. The Station House Officer, Guntakal If Town Police Station; District. 4. One CC to Sri Seshadri Goalla Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] : 6. Two CD Copies H ■ I'- f ¥ high court DATED; 25/06/2025 'I ORDER TRCRLP No. 40 of 2025 O USEf 2025 X o *3; m -e» Current beciton ^ dismissing the TRCRLP r