APHC010331672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 47/2025 Between: Guttula Rambabu ...PETITIONER AND K Sreekanth Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJU GUBBALA 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., 2023 seeking to withdraw C.C.No.298 of 2018, on the file of the I Special Magistrate Court, Ananthapuram and transfer the same to any competent Court of equivalent jurisdiction at Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The respondent No.1 had filed a complaint vide C.C.No.298 of 2018, on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuram and subsequently, the same was transferred to the I Special Magistrate Court at Ananthapuram, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the Month of April, 2017 by way of a hand loan from the respondent No.1, for his business purpose and committed default in repaying the said amount. Thereafter, on demand by the respondent No.1 for repayment of the debt, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.26074, dated 10.12.2017 drawn on State Bank of India, Indrapalem Branch, Kakinada, in favour of the complainant/respondent No.1 as part payment of the debt. Subsequently, when the respondent No.1 had presented the aforesaid cheque dated 10.12.2017 through his Bank, A.Narayanapuram Branch on 28.12.2017, the said cheque was returned to the complainant’s Bank on 29.12.2017, with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” in the account of the petitioner. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Kakinada, Kakinada District and it is very difficult for him to travel at a distance of approximately 700 Kms from Kakinada to Ananthapuram for attending the Court proceedings before the learned I Special Magistrate Court at Ananthapuram. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer criminal petition seeking to withdraw C.C.No.298 of 2018, on the file of the I Special Magistrate Court, Ananthapuram and transfer the same to any competent Court of equivalent jurisdiction at Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 3. Heard Sri Raju Gubbala, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record. 4. As seen from the material on record, the notice sent to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 herein before the Court below was served on him. But, none appearing for the respondent No.1. The main ground urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of a Criminal Case from Ananthapur to Kakinada is that the petitioner/accused is a practicing Advocate at Kakinada and it is very difficult for him to travel from Kakinada to Ananthapuram for attending the Court proceedings before the learned I Special Magistrate Court at Ananthapuram, which is situated at a distance of 700 Kms. 5. The copy of the complaint attached to the present transfer criminal petition clearly shows that the complainant is residing at Anantapurm and the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the copy of the Aadhaar Card filed in the present petition shows that the respondent No.1 is residing at Ravaram Mandalam in East Godavari District. In fact, the date of its issuance is nowhere mentioned in the copy of the aforesaid Aadhaar Card. Further, as per the complaint of the respondent No.1, it is seen that the respondent No.1 has lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional Court and the stage of the case in C.C.No.298 of 2018, on the file of the I Special Magistrate Court, Ananthapuram is for “Cross-examination of the P.W.1” and it seems that the trail has already been commenced. “The law is well settled that while transferring a Criminal Case, the convenience of the complainant or witnesses has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience caused to the accused.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sri Lakshmi Agencies and Others Vs Rallis India Limited and Others1, wherein the facts of the aforesaid case law are quite different from the facts of the instant case on hand. 7. 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 1 (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 312 Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. The Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India & ors2 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.” 8. 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. 2 2011 (1) SCC 307 Further, as seen from the material available on record, the stage of the case in C.C.No.298 of 2018, on the file of the I Special Magistrate Court, Ananthapuram is for “Cross-examination of the P.W.1” and the trail has already been commenced. Hence, at this Stage, the case in C.C.No.298 of 2018, cannot be transferred from Ananthapur to any other place in East Godavari District as sought by the petitioner. Therefore, 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. 9. 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: 01.09.2025 SRT