APHC010322452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 49/2025 Between: Pyla Nagamani ...PETITIONER AND Pyla Venkata Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., seeking to withdraw C.C.No.181 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothuru and transfer the same to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1 and their marriage has been performed at Srikakulam District on 26.06.2022, as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her daughter are staying at her parents’ house at Santhi Nagar Colony, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that subsequently, in the years 2018 and 2021, her parents have passed away and as such she is residing at her brother’s house. The petitioner further pleaded that she had lodged a Criminal Case before the Station House Office, Kotturu Police Station under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was numbered as C.C.No.181 of 2015, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kotturu and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that she had also filed a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.03 of 2015, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kotturu and the respondent No.1 is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Courts at Kotturu. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as the distance in between Srikakulam and Kotturu is approximately 80 kms, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.337 of 2024, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, seeking transfer of C.C.No.181 of 2015, from the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothuru to the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, wherein the Court below vide its order dated 09.04.2025, had dismissed the Crl.M.P., filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the respondents therein would face difficulty in attending the Court proceedings at Srikakulam. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer criminal petition seeking to withdraw C.C.No.181 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Kothuru and transfer the same to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.7/State has represented that the petitioner has already given her evidence and she was also examined as P.W.1 before the trial Court in C.C.No.181 of 2015 and further the appearance of the petitioner herein is not at all required before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotturu in C.C.No.181 of 2015, against which the transfer has been sought by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/State. Perused the material available on record. 5. As seen from the e-Courts website, the case status of the proceedings in C.C.No.181 of 2015 reflects that the P.W.1 and P.W.2 are examined and the matter has been posted to today for the examination of the witnesses i.e., L.W.3 to L.W.7, namely 1. Mr. Seepana Srinivas Rao, S/o Ramulu (L.W.3), 2. Mr. Barri Satyam, S/o Late Krishnamurthy (L.W.4), 3. Mr. Pyla Laxamana Rao, S/o Late Narayana (L.W.5), 4. Mr. Pasirla Sanjeevu, S/o Late Chinnodu (L.W.6), 5. Mr. Patrakonda Jayeswara Rao, S/o Late Chinnammayya (L.W.7). Further, as seen from the charge sheet filed by Police, all the witnesses are residing within the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Kotturu. 6. 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 & ors1 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 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 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.” 7. 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 exceptional cases, considering the fact that the transfers may cast unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. Further, the law is well settled that while transferring a Criminal Case from one Court to another Court, the convenience of the witnesses has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the accused. In view of the aforesaid reasons, as all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet are residing at Kotturu, 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. 8. 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. _______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 18.07.2025 SRT .