APHC010316652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES AT AMARAVATI i 1^*0 m 'o la 'cr ? 3>n WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER^, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 44 OF 2025 O/. />x Between: 1. Chava Srinivasa Rao, S/o Thirupathi Rao, Aged 31 years, Occ : NIL. R/o D.No.21-10/03-78, Srinagar Colony, Sathyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. Chava Lakshmi Devi, W/o Thirupathi Rao, Aged 57 years, Occ : NIL R/o D.No.21-10/03-78, Srinagar Colony. Sathyanarayanapuram. Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. Chava Thirupathi Rao, S/o Subba Ramaiah R/o D.No.21-10/03-78. Srinagar Colony, Vijayawada. Krishna District. 4. Rayi Venkata Lakshimi, W/o Narayana. aged 34 Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada City. 5. Chava Venkata Ratnam, S/o Thirupathi Rao, R/o D.No.21-10/03-78, Srinagar Colony, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Aged 62 years, Occ NIL Sathyanarayanapuram, years, Occ NIL R/o Aged 37 years, Occ NIL Sathyanarayanapuram, ...Petitioners/Accused A1 to A5 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati, Through SHO, P.S. Vijayawada City, P.S. S.N. Puram, Krishna District. Chava Venkata Sujatha, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Aged 30 years, Occ N/o Guwadi Village, VK Padumandal Nagar Colony, Vijayawada City, Krishna District 2. Now R/o D.No.21-10/03-78, Sri ...Respondent/Complainant Petition filed under Section 447 of BNSS (New Act) & 407 of Cr.P.C (Old Act) praying that the High Court may be pleased to transfer C.C.No.110 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District to Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 447 of BNSS (New Act) & 407(6) of Cr.P.C (Old Act) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to transfer C.C.No.110 of 2019 On the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District to Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Challa Ajay Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2; Ms. K Pallavi The Court made the following order: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO tpam?;ffr criminal petition No.44 of 2025 THE J ORDER: filed the present petition under Section 447 of transfer C.C.No.110 of 2019, on the file of the The petitioners have B.N.S.S., 2023 seeking to Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Udayagiri, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows. 2. complaint before the Judicial Udayagiri and the same is forwarded under the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vaikuntapadu the said I. The respondent No.1 had filed a Magistrate of First Class Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to for conducting investigation. Basing on vide Cr.No.50 of 2014 Police Station complaint, the Police had registered a crime under Sections 324 & 506 completion of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police. Vaikuntapadu False”. Aggrieved by the IPC against the petitioners herein. After Police Station has referred the said crime the respondent No.2 herein had filed a Learned Judicial Magistrate of First examining the respondent No.1 Magistrate took the case numteed the same as C.C.No.110 of 2019. as Protest Petition before the Class, Udayagiri, wherein after and other witnesses, the learned the file under Sections 324 & 506 IPC and same on / 2 II. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners herein are arrayed as the accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.110 of 2019 and the petitioner No. 1/Accused No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2 and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the petitioner No.l/Accused No.1. He further submits that the petitioners herein are falsely implicated into a Criminal Case basing on the protest petition filed by the respondent No.2, as such the petitioners are constrained to file the present transfer criminal petition, seeking to transfer C.C.No.110 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prose'cutor appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Ms. K.Pallavi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record. 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 Prosecution Agency. The Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India & ors^ held as follows; 4. J 2013.(1) see 307 3 24.Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is whether or not power manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section and on an order of transfer of trial is not to be analysis of the decisions of this Court that an matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed conduct of a trial. This power has to be passed as a some apprehension about the proper exercised cautiously and in exceptionaf situations, where it becomes necessary to do 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 so 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; and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne (iii) comparative inconvenience the complainant/the prosecution by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses; surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of of the accusations made and the nature of (iv); a communally holding fair and impartial trial because the crime committed by the accused, and (v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or are so indirectly with the course of justice. perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2, it is noticed in C.C.No.110 of 2019 are the residents of Nellore 5. On a that all the witnesses in District. The law is well settled that 'while transferring a Criminal Case from of the witnesses has to be taken caused to the accused’. The Court to another Court, the convenience one into consideration than that of the inconvenience the present petition seeking transfer of C.C.No.110 of petitioners have filed / / 4 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore to the Family Court at Vijayawada, it is admitted by the learned counsel \ appearing for both sides that no case is pending between both the parties before the Courts at Vijayawada. Further as seen from the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 It is observed that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 the parents of the petitioner No. 1/Accused No.1 57 years respectively in the year 2014, hence, it and 3, who are are aged about 62 years and seems that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the senior citizens. It is further represented that the triai in C.C.No.110 of 2019 Udayagiri has to be commenced. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 6. In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law that while transferring a Criminal Case, the transfer of the exceptional cases, considering the fact that case has to be accepted in the transfers may cast unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. Further, the trial in C.C.No.110 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, is yet to be commenced. Therefore, In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioners and as such the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. Further, on considering the age of the petitioner Nos,2 and 3. this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.110 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, except A i 5 the days when their presence is required as per law before the Court or as and when the same is directed by the learned the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is disposed on 7. of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District 2. One CC to Sri. Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Ms. K Pallavi, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies 4. Stu sree 1 / ■G V \ HIGH COURT DATED;10/09/2025 ORDER TRCRLP NO. 44 OF 2025 of and«^ g 2 * SEP 2025 m ^ Current Section ^ N h DISPOSING OF THE TR.CRLP \\ if I ill j! i