APHC010313102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 51/2025 Between: 1. NAMMI GOWREESWARA RAO, S/O LATE NAMMI SAIDULU, AGED ABOUT 48 YARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O 65-6-650, GROUND FLOOR, HIMACHAL NAGAR, NEAR ZINC GATE, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI 2. NAMMI HARI PRASAD YADAV, S/O NAMMI APPALA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE, R/O 65-6-650, GROUND FLOOR, HIMACHAL NAGAR, NEAR ZINC GATE, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): may be pleased to transfer the C.C. 298/2017 on the file of III ACMM, Gajuwaka to any other court within the Visakhapatnam jurisdiction IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in C.C. 298/2017 on the file of III ACMM, Gajuwaka, pending disposal of the main Transfer Criminal Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner herein has filed the present petition under Section 447(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for ‘short the B.N.S.S.’) seeking for transfer of C.C.No.298 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka, to any other Court within the jurisdiction of Visakhapatnam, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner submitted that he had lodged a complaint dated 20.10.2016, before Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, stating that Mr. Nammi Hari Prasad Yadav, who is the respondent No.2/accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 506 IPC and one Mr. Namni Appala Satyanarayana, who is the father of respondent No.2, is influencing the police authorities to protect the accused. He further stated that the father of the accused had instigated the motive behind the offence and is trying to kill the petitioner. However, despite these clear allegations, the police authorities did not include the name of the father of respondent No.2 in the FIR. II. The petitioner submitted that upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.298 of 2017, on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka. Thereafter, the Court had taken cognizance of the offences and posted the matter for trial. During the course of trial, the petitioner came to know that the Investigating Officer had not properly investigated the matter and failed to examine key witnesses. He further stated that the said Investigating Officer had not verified the crucial documents before filing the charge sheet. III. The petitioner pleaded that the learned Magistrate failed to observe before taking cognizance of the offence that whether the Investigating Officer has completed the investigation properly or not and if not, the learned Magistrate shall not take cognizance of the said offence and would direct the concerned Investigating Officer to complete the investigation properly. The petitioner further pleaded that he had filed a petition under Section 173(8) vide Crl.M.P.No.197 of 2023, seeking further investigation, but the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. IV. The petitioner further pleaded that the learned Magistrate had failed to consider the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer was defective and incomplete and that the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking for transfer of C.C.No.298 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Gajuwaka, to any other Court within the jurisdiction of Visakhapatnam. 3. Heard Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State. 4. The law is well settled that in a transfer of Criminal case, this Court is not supposed to enter into the merits or demerits of the case, which is pending before the trial Court. Moreover, to substantiate the allegations leveled in the affidavit of the petitioner, no prima facie material evidence was produced by the petitioner. The law is also well-settled that based on the vague allegations, the case in C.C.No.298 of 2017, which is pending before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, cannot be withdrawn and transferred to any other Court within the jurisdiction of Visakhapatnam. Furthermore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.197 of 2023 is challenged by the petitioner before the revision Court and the same is pending vide C.R.P.No.11 of 2023. The grounds urged in the Transfer Criminal Petition are no way relevant to transfer the case from one Court to another. The petitioner instead of taking proper legal steps approached this Court by way of transfer application to transfer the case from one Court to another Court. 5. 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. 6. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. 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: 28.07.2025 CVD