IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 57 OF 2024 Between: 1. Pittam Sreekanth Reddy, S/o.Chinna Ramasubba Reddy, aged about 32 years, R/o.D.No.2/20, Ernapadu Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. Pittam Chinna Subba Reddy S/o.Chinna Ramasubba Reddy, R/o.D.No.2/20, Ernapadu Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. Pittam Lakshmi Devi, W/o.Chinna Ramasubba Reddy, R/o.D.No.2/20, Ernapadu Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 4. Pittam Sudarshan Reddy S/o.Chinna Ramasubba Reddy, R/o.D.No.2/20, Ernapadu Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Chereddy Venkata Sulochana, W/o.Pittam Sreekanth Reddy, aged about 31 years, R/o.D.No.3/653-4, Gayatri Nagar, Proddatur Town, YSR Kadapa District. ...Respondents Petition filed under Section 447 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 407 oP Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer C.C.No.1474 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District to Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class Magistrate, Nandyal, Nandyal District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition filed under Section 447 (6) of BNSS, 2023 (Section 407 (6) of Cr.P.C) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant the stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.1474 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Naga Phanindra, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor behalf of Respondent No.1 and of Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate for Respondent No.2 on The Court made the following ORDER : BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO transfer criminal petition No.57 of 2024 THE HON ORDER: herein filed the present petition under Section The petitioners Procedure Code, seeking transfer of the case C.C.No.1474 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Proddutur. Y.S.R. Kadapa 407 of Criminal proceedings in Judicial Magistrate of First Class file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, District, to the Nandyal District, for trial. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows; pleaded that the petitioner No.2 is his 2. The petitioner No.1 father, the petitioner No.3 is his mother and the petitioner brother. The marriage of the petitioner No.4 is his younger Ho.2lde-facto-complainant was Hindu Rites and Caste respondent stayed with him at No.1 with the respondent 13.03.2017, as per performed on Customs. Thereafter, the 2 nd Eernapadu Village and shifted to doing job there and their residence at Hyderabad and the petitioner No.1 was subsequently 2^^ respondent Hyderabad. They stayed for a Hyderabad and during has also secured job in period of 18 months in their wedlock period they were Ui 2 blessed with a male child by name Devansh on 14.10.2019 at Proddatur. II. The petitioner further pleaded that from the day of their marriage, the 2"*^ respondent has been harassing him and his family members on one pretext or the other without any reasons and the petitioner No.1 even tolerated her adamant behavior with a fond hope that she would change her behavior. Later when the petitioner No.1 went to in-law’s house to see his son in the month of September, 2019 and the 2"'' respondent did not change her attitude and did not allow him to see his son also. Thereafter due to Covid-19, the petitioner No.1 started staying at his Village and doing his job by way of work from home and the 2"^^ respondent stayed with the petitioner No.1 till 22.02.2020 and left his company without intimation along with our son and did not return inspite of Panchayats with Village elders. III. The petitioner No.1 further pleaded that with the advice of elders he setup family at Nandyal with the 2"'* respondent in the month of November, 2020, at Nandyal and even then the attitude of the 2"*^ respondent did not change and she left him along with son in the month of December, 2020 and stayed at ^her parents’ house at Prodattur. Thereafter, he filed 3 the file of Principal M.O.P.No.100/2020 for desertion on senior Civil Judge, Nandyal and at the intervention of elders nd respondent deserted him he has withdraw the same. The 2 without any reasonable cause and justification foisted a false family members vide the file of the 111 town Police Station, against him and his Crime No. 75/2022 on Proddatur, Under Sections case 498(A) & 506, r/w 34 of I.P.C., of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. and Under Sections 3 & 4 the Police laid a charge sheet in the said crime, the vide C.C No. 1474/2022 on the file of Later same was registered as Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur. the I Additional No.1 submits that, thereafter, he was under Section 13(1 )(ia) of Hindu for dissolution of Marriage with The petitioner constrained to file a petition Marriage Act, 1955, seeking the 2"“ respondent/de-facto-comp/a/nanf herein on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. counsel for the petitioners and learned Public behalf of respondent No.1/State and the 11 Heard learned Prosecutor appearing learned counsel for the respondent No.2. The petitioners the fiie af the 1 Additional Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, are 3. on who are the accused in C.C.No.1474 of 2022 4. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, seeking transfer from the file on 4 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, to the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, Nandyal District. The grounds urged by the petitioners are that there is a life threat in the hands of the respondent No.2 at Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. As seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as counter-affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, admittedly, the petitioners have not filed any complaint against the respondent No.2 before any Police Station or before Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court at Proddutur, before whom that case is pending for adjudication, that there was a apprehension of threat to the life of the petitioners at Proddutur in the hands of the respondent No.2/cye-/acfo- complainant. 5. 6. It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a Criminal Case, the transfer of the criminal case has to be accepted in exceptional cases, considering the facts that the transfers may cast 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; ^ 2011(1)see 307 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; (Hi) 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 comrnitted by the accused; and 6 (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 ofjustice.” The law is well settled in Transfer of Criminal Case, the Court has to be considered the convenience of the witnesses than that of the inconvenience caused to the accused. As per the case of the prosecution, ten (10) witnesses were cited in the charge sheet and they are residing within the jurisdiction of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Proddutur, in which Court the case in question is pending. Therefore, if the case transferred from Proddutur to Nandyal, the witnesses will suffer several problems which cannot be compensated. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any valid grounds to consider the request made by the petitioners for seeking transfer of the case proceedings in C.C.No.1474 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddutur, Kadapa District, to the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, Nandyal District. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 the petitioner No.4 is none other than the petitioner No.1. 7. 8. Y.S.R. are senior citizens. younger brother of the 7 the facts and circumstances of the Therefore, considering 9. representation made by the learned counsel appearing on of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.1474 of 2022 on the file of the of First Class, Proddutur, Y.S.R. case and both sides, the personal appearance i.e.. Accused No.2 to 4 in _ I Additional Judicial Magistrate dispensed with “except when their personal appearance is required as per law”, before the said Court. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is of the petitioner Nos.2 Kadapa District, has been 10. disposed of and the personal appearance . Accused No.2 to 4 in C.C.No.1474 of 2022 on the file of to 4 i.e Magistrate of First Class. Proddutur, Y.S.R. dispensed with “except on the days when before the said the I Additional Judicial Kadapa District, has been their personal appearance is required as per law Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions Interim order granted earlier, if any if any pending and the shall stand closed. SD/- K.KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, YSR 1. The I Additional Kadapa District. 2. The Station House Officer, Proddatur Kadapa District. Ill Town Police Station, YSR i 3. One CC to Sri K Naga Phanindra Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] # 6. Three CD Copies BSV TAC \ high court DATED;22/01/2025 ORDER TRCRLP.No.57 of 2024 5 t 3 MAR 2025 ^ Current Section S^SPATCH^ disposed of the TR.CRLP WITHOUT COSTS